<?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>2016 (2) TMI 1344 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302929</link>
    <description>The case involved Tax Case Appeals regarding the allowance of depreciation on a sale and leaseback transaction of wind electric generators. The main issue was whether depreciation could be claimed when the assessee was not the landowner where the generators were installed. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed the claim based on land ownership, but the First Appellate Authority and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) disagreed. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing that land ownership did not impact the depreciation claim on the machinery. The judgment clarified that revenue treatment should be based on the financing agreement, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2022 07:47:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=682992" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 1344 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302929</link>
      <description>The case involved Tax Case Appeals regarding the allowance of depreciation on a sale and leaseback transaction of wind electric generators. The main issue was whether depreciation could be claimed when the assessee was not the landowner where the generators were installed. The Assessing Officer initially disallowed the claim based on land ownership, but the First Appellate Authority and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) disagreed. The Tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing that land ownership did not impact the depreciation claim on the machinery. The judgment clarified that revenue treatment should be based on the financing agreement, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue&#039;s appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302929</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>