<?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 (2) TMI 96 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391652</link>
    <description>Section 263 revision is confined to assessments that are both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue; where the carry-forward of losses under section 72A accords with the legal position read with section 32(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, the jurisdictional basis for revision fails. Additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) is available for eligible new plant or machinery, including wind mills, and does not require a direct functional nexus with the assessee&#039;s existing manufacturing activity. A separate objection based on the absence of a specific show-cause notice on the wind mill issue did not displace the substantive legal position, so the assessee&#039;s position was upheld on all points.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2020 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=602512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 96 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391652</link>
      <description>Section 263 revision is confined to assessments that are both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue; where the carry-forward of losses under section 72A accords with the legal position read with section 32(2) of the Sick Industrial Companies Act, the jurisdictional basis for revision fails. Additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia) is available for eligible new plant or machinery, including wind mills, and does not require a direct functional nexus with the assessee&#039;s existing manufacturing activity. A separate objection based on the absence of a specific show-cause notice on the wind mill issue did not displace the substantive legal position, so the assessee&#039;s position was upheld on all points.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>