<?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>1988 (11) TMI 11 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23257</link>
    <description>Roads, walks, driveways and approach roads within a factory were held not to qualify as &quot;plant&quot; for depreciation purposes, following the Court&#039;s earlier decision against the assessee on the same issue. The argument that depreciation had been allowed on the basis that the assets were buildings, rather than plant, was noted only as a matter relevant to giving effect to the order. The claimed structures were therefore not entitled to depreciation as plant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:15:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62256" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (11) TMI 11 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23257</link>
      <description>Roads, walks, driveways and approach roads within a factory were held not to qualify as &quot;plant&quot; for depreciation purposes, following the Court&#039;s earlier decision against the assessee on the same issue. The argument that depreciation had been allowed on the basis that the assets were buildings, rather than plant, was noted only as a matter relevant to giving effect to the order. The claimed structures were therefore not entitled to depreciation as plant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23257</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>