<?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>1999 (2) TMI 37 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15645</link>
    <description>For depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, &quot;owner&quot; is not confined to strict legal title and may include a person who, in substance, has possession, control, enjoyment and business use of the property. Where the parties intended ownership to operate from an earlier effective date, later registration of the conveyance did not by itself defeat depreciation. Applying that wider and practical construction of ownership, the assessee, which had been running the tea estate from the effective date fixed in the conveyance, was entitled to depreciation and additional depreciation on the assets and constructions. The Tribunal was held to be wrong in denying the claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:27:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54645" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 37 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15645</link>
      <description>For depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, &quot;owner&quot; is not confined to strict legal title and may include a person who, in substance, has possession, control, enjoyment and business use of the property. Where the parties intended ownership to operate from an earlier effective date, later registration of the conveyance did not by itself defeat depreciation. Applying that wider and practical construction of ownership, the assessee, which had been running the tea estate from the effective date fixed in the conveyance, was entitled to depreciation and additional depreciation on the assets and constructions. The Tribunal was held to be wrong in denying the claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>