<?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>1983 (1) TMI 83 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28979</link>
    <description>A building used partly for the assessee&#039;s own business and partly let out must be apportioned for depreciation purposes, so only the business-use portion qualifies for proportionate depreciation. By contrast, lifts and air-conditioning plant retained in the assessee&#039;s exclusive control remained wholly business assets, because incidental use by tenants or visitors did not amount to separate non-business user. On that basis, full depreciation was treated as available for such plant and machinery, and development rebate was regarded as dependent on the machinery being wholly used for business. The commentary distinguishes immovable property from plant and machinery and emphasises actual business user and control as the governing test.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 11:55:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (1) TMI 83 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28979</link>
      <description>A building used partly for the assessee&#039;s own business and partly let out must be apportioned for depreciation purposes, so only the business-use portion qualifies for proportionate depreciation. By contrast, lifts and air-conditioning plant retained in the assessee&#039;s exclusive control remained wholly business assets, because incidental use by tenants or visitors did not amount to separate non-business user. On that basis, full depreciation was treated as available for such plant and machinery, and development rebate was regarded as dependent on the machinery being wholly used for business. The commentary distinguishes immovable property from plant and machinery and emphasises actual business user and control as the governing test.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28979</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>