<?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>1993 (6) TMI 45 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20536</link>
    <description>Depreciation under section 5(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act was available only for buildings, machinery, plant and furniture that were the assessee&#039;s property. The Kerala HC held that depreciation on sprinkler equipment acquired on hire purchase could not be allowed without a finding that ownership had passed to the assessee for the relevant assessment year, which depended on whether the last instalment had been paid before that year began. Because the Tribunal had allowed depreciation without deciding that essential factual question, its conclusion was unsustainable. The allowance of depreciation was set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for fresh determination on ownership and payment under the hire purchase agreement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:41:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (6) TMI 45 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20536</link>
      <description>Depreciation under section 5(1) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act was available only for buildings, machinery, plant and furniture that were the assessee&#039;s property. The Kerala HC held that depreciation on sprinkler equipment acquired on hire purchase could not be allowed without a finding that ownership had passed to the assessee for the relevant assessment year, which depended on whether the last instalment had been paid before that year began. Because the Tribunal had allowed depreciation without deciding that essential factual question, its conclusion was unsustainable. The allowance of depreciation was set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for fresh determination on ownership and payment under the hire purchase agreement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20536</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>