<?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>1996 (3) TMI 19 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17031</link>
    <description>The High Court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation from a defunct firm against partners&#039; other business profits. The judgment favored the partners, with no costs imposed. The Court emphasized that limitations should not be imposed unless expressly stated, clarifying that business continuity in the same business is not required for availing benefits under the relevant section.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 16:47:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (3) TMI 19 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17031</link>
      <description>The High Court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow set off of unabsorbed depreciation from a defunct firm against partners&#039; other business profits. The judgment favored the partners, with no costs imposed. The Court emphasized that limitations should not be imposed unless expressly stated, clarifying that business continuity in the same business is not required for availing benefits under the relevant section.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>