https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23396 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue on various issues in the case. It determined that the assessee had discontinued its business based on evidence like asset sales and cessation of manufacturing. The rental income was classified as income from other sources due to the inclusion of furniture in the lease agreement. The assessee was denied depreciation allowance and carry forward of losses as no evidence was presented. Additionally, interest on borrowings was deemed non-deductible as the rental income was categorized as property income. A. Raghuvir C. J. delivered the judgment with SMT. M. Sharma J. concurring. en-us Fri, 04 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:32:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23396 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue on various issues in the case. It determined that the assessee had discontinued its business based on evidence like asset sales and cessation of manufacturing. The rental income was classified as income from other sources due to the inclusion of furniture in the lease agreement. The assessee was denied depreciation allowance and carry forward of losses as no evidence was presented. Additionally, interest on borrowings was deemed non-deductible as the rental income was categorized as property income. A. Raghuvir C. J. delivered the judgment with SMT. M. Sharma J. concurring. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23396