<?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>2003 (7) TMI 39 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11390</link>
    <description>For section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, &quot;destroyed&quot; requires actual physical destruction of the asset. A ship merely reported missing at sea could not be treated as destroyed, because disappearance alone did not prove physical destruction. As no such destruction was established, the provision was not attracted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 17:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50406" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 39 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11390</link>
      <description>For section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, &quot;destroyed&quot; requires actual physical destruction of the asset. A ship merely reported missing at sea could not be treated as destroyed, because disappearance alone did not prove physical destruction. As no such destruction was established, the provision was not attracted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>