<?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>2017 (6) TMI 1272 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277507</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance under section 35AD(5)(aa) of the Income Tax Act and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the investment allowance claimed by the assessee. However, the Tribunal upheld the restriction on higher depreciation for plant and machinery and building, confirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2018 05:32:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545749" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 1272 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277507</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance under section 35AD(5)(aa) of the Income Tax Act and directing the Assessing Officer to allow the investment allowance claimed by the assessee. However, the Tribunal upheld the restriction on higher depreciation for plant and machinery and building, confirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277507</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>