<?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 (8) TMI 36 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24466</link>
    <description>Capital subsidy received under a Government scheme was not required to be deducted from the actual cost of plant and machinery for depreciation purposes under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its earlier decision on the same point and found no reason to depart from that view. The subsidy was treated as not reducing the cost of the assets for computing depreciation, so the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:44:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63464" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (8) TMI 36 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24466</link>
      <description>Capital subsidy received under a Government scheme was not required to be deducted from the actual cost of plant and machinery for depreciation purposes under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its earlier decision on the same point and found no reason to depart from that view. The subsidy was treated as not reducing the cost of the assets for computing depreciation, so the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Aug 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>