<?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 (9) TMI 928 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398809</link>
    <description>The Court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision allowing depreciation on Floor Space Index (FSI) at 10% of the total consideration, rejecting the assessee&#039;s claim for 25% depreciation on intangible assets. The Tribunal held that FSI enhances the building&#039;s value, justifying depreciation on the full amount debited to fixed assets. The Court found the decision in line with relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal&#039;s ruling on depreciation percentages.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2021 13:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=623122" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 928 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398809</link>
      <description>The Court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision allowing depreciation on Floor Space Index (FSI) at 10% of the total consideration, rejecting the assessee&#039;s claim for 25% depreciation on intangible assets. The Tribunal held that FSI enhances the building&#039;s value, justifying depreciation on the full amount debited to fixed assets. The Court found the decision in line with relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal&#039;s ruling on depreciation percentages.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398809</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>