<?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>2016 (8) TMI 1405 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277505</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to delete additions totaling Rs. 43,48,792/-, accepting Form No. 10 and Form No. 10B as additional evidence for accumulation of income under Section 11(2). The Tribunal also allowed the depreciation claim of Rs. 8,13,513/- despite the assessee claiming 100% deduction towards capital expenditure. The revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2016 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=545751" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 1405 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277505</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to delete additions totaling Rs. 43,48,792/-, accepting Form No. 10 and Form No. 10B as additional evidence for accumulation of income under Section 11(2). The Tribunal also allowed the depreciation claim of Rs. 8,13,513/- despite the assessee claiming 100% deduction towards capital expenditure. The revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>