<?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 (9) TMI 736 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412391</link>
    <description>Movable showroom equipment installed at dealers&#039; premises was treated as capital expenditure where ownership remained with the assessee and the assets could be removed and reused elsewhere. Club membership and related service charges were not allowed as revenue expenditure on the facts, because the claim was not limited to a pure membership subscription. Depreciation on the let-out portion of the Gurgaon building was also disallowed by following the assessee&#039;s own earlier case. Advances written off for proposed acquisition of capital assets were not deductible as bad debt or revenue expenditure, as the statutory conditions for such deduction were not satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2021 15:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=655938" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 736 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412391</link>
      <description>Movable showroom equipment installed at dealers&#039; premises was treated as capital expenditure where ownership remained with the assessee and the assets could be removed and reused elsewhere. Club membership and related service charges were not allowed as revenue expenditure on the facts, because the claim was not limited to a pure membership subscription. Depreciation on the let-out portion of the Gurgaon building was also disallowed by following the assessee&#039;s own earlier case. Advances written off for proposed acquisition of capital assets were not deductible as bad debt or revenue expenditure, as the statutory conditions for such deduction were not satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412391</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>