<?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 (6) TMI 439 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396064</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the expenditure on leasehold improvements qualifies as revenue expenditure, ATMs are considered computers for depreciation purposes, and the change in the accounting method by the assessee was justified. The court dismissed the revenue&#039;s contentions, upholding the tribunal&#039;s decisions based on established legal principles and precedents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2020 17:42:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=615504" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (6) TMI 439 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396064</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the expenditure on leasehold improvements qualifies as revenue expenditure, ATMs are considered computers for depreciation purposes, and the change in the accounting method by the assessee was justified. The court dismissed the revenue&#039;s contentions, upholding the tribunal&#039;s decisions based on established legal principles and precedents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>