<?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>2004 (4) TMI 62 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11129</link>
    <description>The court held that the assessee could set off his share of unabsorbed depreciation from a firm against his income, even if the firm was not conducting business during the relevant previous year. This decision was based on the interpretation of statutory provisions, aligning with the majority view of various High Courts and guidance from the Supreme Court. The judgment favored the assessee, directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to be informed accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (4) TMI 62 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11129</link>
      <description>The court held that the assessee could set off his share of unabsorbed depreciation from a firm against his income, even if the firm was not conducting business during the relevant previous year. This decision was based on the interpretation of statutory provisions, aligning with the majority view of various High Courts and guidance from the Supreme Court. The judgment favored the assessee, directing the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to be informed accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>