<?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>1986 (9) TMI 75 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26342</link>
    <description>Expenditure on furnace repairs was treated as revenue in nature and therefore deductible in computing surtax liability. The court followed an earlier Division Bench decision involving the same assessee and assessment year, where the same repair expenditure had already been held deductible on identical facts. Applying that prior ruling, it confirmed that the full amount incurred on repairs of furnaces remained allowable as a deduction for surtax purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:05:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (9) TMI 75 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26342</link>
      <description>Expenditure on furnace repairs was treated as revenue in nature and therefore deductible in computing surtax liability. The court followed an earlier Division Bench decision involving the same assessee and assessment year, where the same repair expenditure had already been held deductible on identical facts. Applying that prior ruling, it confirmed that the full amount incurred on repairs of furnaces remained allowable as a deduction for surtax purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26342</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>