<?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>2021 (3) TMI 762 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405434</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the Commissioner&#039;s decision to allow depreciation for the acquisition cost of the bank. The judgment emphasized the eligibility of certain intangible assets for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, distinguishing between intellectual property rights and business or commercial rights.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2021 08:46:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=639370" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 762 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405434</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, upholding the Commissioner&#039;s decision to allow depreciation for the acquisition cost of the bank. The judgment emphasized the eligibility of certain intangible assets for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, distinguishing between intellectual property rights and business or commercial rights.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>