<?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>2000 (11) TMI 108 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14564</link>
    <description>The court held that the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation on consumer durables leased to customers, as the transactions were akin to installment sales rather than leasing agreements. The interpretation of &#039;actual cost&#039; and treatment of lease rent led to the disallowance of depreciation claims. The court affirmed the assessing authority and Tribunal&#039;s decisions, ruling against the assessee in favor of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:04:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53564" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 108 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14564</link>
      <description>The court held that the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation on consumer durables leased to customers, as the transactions were akin to installment sales rather than leasing agreements. The interpretation of &#039;actual cost&#039; and treatment of lease rent led to the disallowance of depreciation claims. The court affirmed the assessing authority and Tribunal&#039;s decisions, ruling against the assessee in favor of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>