<?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>1994 (12) TMI 40 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19219</link>
    <description>The court held that compensation for route permits is capital expenditure, not deductible as revenue expenditure. Depreciation is allowed only on the value of buses, not on route permits. The court answered both issues in favor of the Department, citing precedents that emphasized the enduring nature of the assets acquired. No costs were awarded, and counsel&#039;s fee was set at Rs. 1,000.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:46:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=58218" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (12) TMI 40 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19219</link>
      <description>The court held that compensation for route permits is capital expenditure, not deductible as revenue expenditure. Depreciation is allowed only on the value of buses, not on route permits. The court answered both issues in favor of the Department, citing precedents that emphasized the enduring nature of the assets acquired. No costs were awarded, and counsel&#039;s fee was set at Rs. 1,000.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19219</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>