<?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>1998 (7) TMI 16 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14995</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that the expenditure of Rs. 3,09,500 for developing a prototype compressor was revenue in nature and allowable as revenue expenditure. Additionally, the court upheld the entitlement of the assessee to claim depreciation on properties purchased for business purposes, as the assessee met the necessary requirements for claiming depreciation. The assessee was awarded costs of Rs. 1,000.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:25:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53995" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 16 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14995</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that the expenditure of Rs. 3,09,500 for developing a prototype compressor was revenue in nature and allowable as revenue expenditure. Additionally, the court upheld the entitlement of the assessee to claim depreciation on properties purchased for business purposes, as the assessee met the necessary requirements for claiming depreciation. The assessee was awarded costs of Rs. 1,000.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14995</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>