<?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 (7) TMI 63 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17505</link>
    <description>Where multiple activities are financed from a common pool and carried on under common management with a common business purpose, the commencement of a new contract does not by itself create a separate source of income for tax purposes. Applying that principle, the text states that a contract awarded by Bhilai Steel Plant was not treated as a new source of income under the Income-tax Act, 1961. On the same factual basis, depreciation on Poclain machinery was sustained for 23 months rather than 14 months because the machinery was treated as part of the integrated contract business. Both referred questions were answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:15:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 63 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17505</link>
      <description>Where multiple activities are financed from a common pool and carried on under common management with a common business purpose, the commencement of a new contract does not by itself create a separate source of income for tax purposes. Applying that principle, the text states that a contract awarded by Bhilai Steel Plant was not treated as a new source of income under the Income-tax Act, 1961. On the same factual basis, depreciation on Poclain machinery was sustained for 23 months rather than 14 months because the machinery was treated as part of the integrated contract business. Both referred questions were answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17505</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>