https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400342 The High Court partly allowed the Tax Case Appeal. Substantial Question of Law No.1 was answered against the assessee, upholding the Tribunal's decision on the non-allowability of expenditure incurred for revamping the abandoned visbreaker unit. Substantial Question of Law No.2 was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further consideration regarding the claim for depreciation on repair charges for the visbreaker unit. Substantial Question of Law No.3 was answered in favor of the assessee, aligning with previous judgments on the claim of depreciation on the gas sweetening plant. en-us Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Nov 2020 09:19:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400342 The High Court partly allowed the Tax Case Appeal. Substantial Question of Law No.1 was answered against the assessee, upholding the Tribunal's decision on the non-allowability of expenditure incurred for revamping the abandoned visbreaker unit. Substantial Question of Law No.2 was remanded to the Assessing Officer for further consideration regarding the claim for depreciation on repair charges for the visbreaker unit. Substantial Question of Law No.3 was answered in favor of the assessee, aligning with previous judgments on the claim of depreciation on the gas sweetening plant. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400342