<?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>1997 (2) TMI 47 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16686</link>
    <description>Depreciation was allowable on roads laid inside factory premises, applying the Supreme Court principle governing factory roads, so the assessee succeeded on that point. Extra-shift allowance depended on whether the item fell within the exclusion for electrical machinery under Appendix I, Part I, Class III, Clause F(iv) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The arc furnace was not treated as electrical machinery because electricity merely passed through it and no in-built motor forming an inseparable part was shown, so the Revenue&#039;s position prevailed on that issue. The power travel electric lift required fresh examination because the Tribunal had applied an irrelevant consideration instead of the correct test.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:56:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55686" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 47 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16686</link>
      <description>Depreciation was allowable on roads laid inside factory premises, applying the Supreme Court principle governing factory roads, so the assessee succeeded on that point. Extra-shift allowance depended on whether the item fell within the exclusion for electrical machinery under Appendix I, Part I, Class III, Clause F(iv) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The arc furnace was not treated as electrical machinery because electricity merely passed through it and no in-built motor forming an inseparable part was shown, so the Revenue&#039;s position prevailed on that issue. The power travel electric lift required fresh examination because the Tribunal had applied an irrelevant consideration instead of the correct test.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16686</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>