<?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>2020 (1) TMI 372 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390759</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14, overturning the decisions of the AO and CIT(A) regarding the depreciation rate on office equipment. The Tribunal classified office equipment under Block III for a 15% depreciation rate, in line with Income Tax Rules and previous precedent. This decision was based on adherence to rules and previous judgments, specifically referencing a favorable order for the assessee in the assessment year 2010-11.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=599959" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 372 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390759</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14, overturning the decisions of the AO and CIT(A) regarding the depreciation rate on office equipment. The Tribunal classified office equipment under Block III for a 15% depreciation rate, in line with Income Tax Rules and previous precedent. This decision was based on adherence to rules and previous judgments, specifically referencing a favorable order for the assessee in the assessment year 2010-11.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390759</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>