<?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>2002 (8) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11442</link>
    <description>Cost of construction for income-tax purposes is primarily a question of fact, depending on the material used, the location and the quality of construction. The text states that no uniform rule requires adoption of either PWD rates or CPWD rates in every case. On the facts discussed, the Tribunal&#039;s use of Rajasthan PWD rates was treated as part of its factual finding, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11442</link>
      <description>Cost of construction for income-tax purposes is primarily a question of fact, depending on the material used, the location and the quality of construction. The text states that no uniform rule requires adoption of either PWD rates or CPWD rates in every case. On the facts discussed, the Tribunal&#039;s use of Rajasthan PWD rates was treated as part of its factual finding, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11442</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>