<?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 (2) TMI 37 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18085</link>
    <description>The court ruled against the assessee, denying entitlement to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for machinery leased out to a sister concern. The court held that since the machinery was not wholly used for the assessee&#039;s business of bleaching and dyeing, the conditions for investment allowance were not met. However, the court upheld the classification of lease income as business income, following precedents that income from commercial assets can be assessed under the head &quot;Income from business.&quot; The Department succeeded on the first question while the assessee prevailed on the second question, with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:22:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 37 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18085</link>
      <description>The court ruled against the assessee, denying entitlement to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for machinery leased out to a sister concern. The court held that since the machinery was not wholly used for the assessee&#039;s business of bleaching and dyeing, the conditions for investment allowance were not met. However, the court upheld the classification of lease income as business income, following precedents that income from commercial assets can be assessed under the head &quot;Income from business.&quot; The Department succeeded on the first question while the assessee prevailed on the second question, with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18085</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>