<?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 (3) TMI 20 - HIMACHAL PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19608</link>
    <description>Central subsidy received under an incentive scheme was treated as governed by the scheme terms and the Income-tax Act, and the settled principle applied to similar subsidies was that such receipt did not reduce the actual cost of assets for depreciation purposes. As the proposed rectification notices were founded on that incorrect reduction of actual cost, they could not be sustained and were held invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 13:01:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=58607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (3) TMI 20 - HIMACHAL PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19608</link>
      <description>Central subsidy received under an incentive scheme was treated as governed by the scheme terms and the Income-tax Act, and the settled principle applied to similar subsidies was that such receipt did not reduce the actual cost of assets for depreciation purposes. As the proposed rectification notices were founded on that incorrect reduction of actual cost, they could not be sustained and were held invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>