<?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>1992 (11) TMI 38 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20871</link>
    <description>The court ruled that the assessee is not entitled to claim depreciation allowance under section 32 for assets on which a deduction under section 35 has already been granted. However, the court allowed the inclusion of capital expenditure on scientific research and development in the capital base for the purpose of section 80J, even if a full deduction under section 35 has been granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:58:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59870" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (11) TMI 38 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20871</link>
      <description>The court ruled that the assessee is not entitled to claim depreciation allowance under section 32 for assets on which a deduction under section 35 has already been granted. However, the court allowed the inclusion of capital expenditure on scientific research and development in the capital base for the purpose of section 80J, even if a full deduction under section 35 has been granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20871</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>