<?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>2001 (9) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12283</link>
    <description>After rejection of the books under section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal applied a net profit rate and stated that it would cover depreciation and interest. The note records that this approach was taken without considering the CBDT circulars relied on by the assessee, and that section 40(b) was not applicable for the relevant assessment year. It further states that depreciation could not be treated as covered by the net profit rate of 7 per cent, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 16:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51295" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (9) TMI 14 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12283</link>
      <description>After rejection of the books under section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal applied a net profit rate and stated that it would cover depreciation and interest. The note records that this approach was taken without considering the CBDT circulars relied on by the assessee, and that section 40(b) was not applicable for the relevant assessment year. It further states that depreciation could not be treated as covered by the net profit rate of 7 per cent, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12283</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>