<?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 (9) TMI 13 - GAUHATI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23790</link>
    <description>Where the sale of the tea estate was treated as effective from 1 January 1969, the vendor&#039;s management of the estate as agent of the purchaser meant the business was carried on for the assessee from that date. On that factual and legal footing, depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was available in computing the estate&#039;s income, and the claim was allowed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:54:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62788" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (9) TMI 13 - GAUHATI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23790</link>
      <description>Where the sale of the tea estate was treated as effective from 1 January 1969, the vendor&#039;s management of the estate as agent of the purchaser meant the business was carried on for the assessee from that date. On that factual and legal footing, depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was available in computing the estate&#039;s income, and the claim was allowed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23790</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>