<?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 (11) TMI 574 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350695</link>
    <description>The Court allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the correct interpretation of Section 32 for depreciation claims on assets forming part of a Block of Asset. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the block value concept and the applicability of depreciation provisions in cases of forced idleness due to closure or strikes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Nov 2017 10:23:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=495473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 574 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350695</link>
      <description>The Court allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the correct interpretation of Section 32 for depreciation claims on assets forming part of a Block of Asset. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the block value concept and the applicability of depreciation provisions in cases of forced idleness due to closure or strikes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350695</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>