<?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 (10) TMI 68 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12137</link>
    <description>Depreciation for assessment year 1988-89 was treated as not allowable where the assessee had withdrawn the claim in a valid revised return, and the assessment could proceed on that basis. The governing principle reflected the Supreme Court&#039;s position that a withdrawn depreciation claim need not be allowed in assessment when the revised return omits it. Explanation 5 to section 32(1), inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 1 April 2002, was held not to operate retrospectively and therefore did not alter the position for earlier assessment years. The disallowance of depreciation was therefore legally sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Dec 2025 15:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51149" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 68 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12137</link>
      <description>Depreciation for assessment year 1988-89 was treated as not allowable where the assessee had withdrawn the claim in a valid revised return, and the assessment could proceed on that basis. The governing principle reflected the Supreme Court&#039;s position that a withdrawn depreciation claim need not be allowed in assessment when the revised return omits it. Explanation 5 to section 32(1), inserted by the Finance Act, 2001 with effect from 1 April 2002, was held not to operate retrospectively and therefore did not alter the position for earlier assessment years. The disallowance of depreciation was therefore legally sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12137</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>