<?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 (4) TMI 29 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17235</link>
    <description>Special depreciation at 15% was upheld where plant and machinery came into contact with corrosive chemicals, making the allowance not wholly unwarranted. The Tribunal&#039;s view rested on appreciation of facts, and its conclusion did not give rise to any independent question of law. On that footing, the challenge to the order under section 263 failed, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:32:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 29 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17235</link>
      <description>Special depreciation at 15% was upheld where plant and machinery came into contact with corrosive chemicals, making the allowance not wholly unwarranted. The Tribunal&#039;s view rested on appreciation of facts, and its conclusion did not give rise to any independent question of law. On that footing, the challenge to the order under section 263 failed, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17235</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>