<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (10) TMI 423 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349268</link>
    <description>While computing deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, depreciation under Section 32 must be reduced from eligible business profits even if the assessee did not claim it in the return or computation of income. Section 80-IA is a self-contained profit-linked deduction provision and requires profits to be determined after allowing all deductions under Sections 30 to 43D, including depreciation. The optional treatment of depreciation under Mahendra Mills does not govern this computation, because allowing its omission would improperly inflate eligible profits by deferring the allowance to a later year. The result was that depreciation had to be taken into account and the appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492067" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 423 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349268</link>
      <description>While computing deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, depreciation under Section 32 must be reduced from eligible business profits even if the assessee did not claim it in the return or computation of income. Section 80-IA is a self-contained profit-linked deduction provision and requires profits to be determined after allowing all deductions under Sections 30 to 43D, including depreciation. The optional treatment of depreciation under Mahendra Mills does not govern this computation, because allowing its omission would improperly inflate eligible profits by deferring the allowance to a later year. The result was that depreciation had to be taken into account and the appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349268</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>