<?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>1949 (9) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276742</link>
    <description>In computing written down value under section 10(5)(c), statutory depreciation applicable to machinery must be deducted from actual cost, even where the assessee had not previously been assessed to income-tax or actually allowed depreciation. The court held that the statutory phrase is &quot;depreciation applicable&quot;, not &quot;depreciation allowed&quot;, so the computation depends on the depreciation prescribed by the Act rather than on whether the assessee earlier obtained any tax benefit. The contention that written down value should remain at actual cost because no prior allowance had been made was rejected as inconsistent with the language of the provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 1949 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2018 15:59:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542242" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1949 (9) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276742</link>
      <description>In computing written down value under section 10(5)(c), statutory depreciation applicable to machinery must be deducted from actual cost, even where the assessee had not previously been assessed to income-tax or actually allowed depreciation. The court held that the statutory phrase is &quot;depreciation applicable&quot;, not &quot;depreciation allowed&quot;, so the computation depends on the depreciation prescribed by the Act rather than on whether the assessee earlier obtained any tax benefit. The contention that written down value should remain at actual cost because no prior allowance had been made was rejected as inconsistent with the language of the provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 1949 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>