<?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 327 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391883</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the disallowance of depreciation and the allowance of carry forward of deficit. The Court relied on previous decisions, including those by the Supreme Court, to conclude that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal&#039;s order. The appellant&#039;s arguments against double deduction were countered by established legal precedents, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without any order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2020 17:21:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=603250" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 327 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391883</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the disallowance of depreciation and the allowance of carry forward of deficit. The Court relied on previous decisions, including those by the Supreme Court, to conclude that no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal&#039;s order. The appellant&#039;s arguments against double deduction were countered by established legal precedents, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without any order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>