<?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 (12) TMI 1130 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416364</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for the balance additional depreciation on assets used for less than 180 days in the preceding financial year. The Tribunal interpreted the relevant provision liberally, following its earlier decision and a High Court ruling, allowing the balance 10% additional depreciation to be claimed in the subsequent year. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, and the assessee&#039;s claim for balance additional depreciation was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2026 11:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=665282" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (12) TMI 1130 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416364</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee for the balance additional depreciation on assets used for less than 180 days in the preceding financial year. The Tribunal interpreted the relevant provision liberally, following its earlier decision and a High Court ruling, allowing the balance 10% additional depreciation to be claimed in the subsequent year. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed, and the assessee&#039;s claim for balance additional depreciation was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416364</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>