<?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>1989 (4) TMI 6 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20818</link>
    <description>Depreciation on moulds used in a separate rubber-container division was allowed at the rate applicable to rubber goods factories because the assessee was actually manufacturing rubber goods in that division. Borewells were treated as eligible for the higher depreciation rate on the basis of the court&#039;s earlier ruling that they were not confined to the lower rate applied by the tax authority. The disallowance of reimbursement of medical expenses and premia for personal accident insurance under sections 40(c) and 40A(5) was deleted, following precedent in the assessee&#039;s own earlier year. The governing approach was that depreciation and disallowance provisions must be applied according to the assessee&#039;s actual business activity and binding precedent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:38:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (4) TMI 6 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20818</link>
      <description>Depreciation on moulds used in a separate rubber-container division was allowed at the rate applicable to rubber goods factories because the assessee was actually manufacturing rubber goods in that division. Borewells were treated as eligible for the higher depreciation rate on the basis of the court&#039;s earlier ruling that they were not confined to the lower rate applied by the tax authority. The disallowance of reimbursement of medical expenses and premia for personal accident insurance under sections 40(c) and 40A(5) was deleted, following precedent in the assessee&#039;s own earlier year. The governing approach was that depreciation and disallowance provisions must be applied according to the assessee&#039;s actual business activity and binding precedent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>