<?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 (9) TMI 69 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16826</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues. It held that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under section 263 to revise the assessment orders, and the hotel building, including the banquet hall, should be treated as a &quot;plant&quot; for depreciation purposes. No costs were awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:47:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 69 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16826</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues. It held that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under section 263 to revise the assessment orders, and the hotel building, including the banquet hall, should be treated as a &quot;plant&quot; for depreciation purposes. No costs were awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>