<?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>1981 (9) TMI 68 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29402</link>
    <description>Initial depreciation is required to be deducted while computing the written down value of assets for capital computation under the 1949 Rules, and the point was decided in favour of the Revenue. Retained profits placed in fixed deposits for future expansion and business needs were treated as moneys required for the purposes of the business, including working capital, meeting liabilities, reducing borrowings and financing development, so they were not excludable from capital employed under rule 3(5) and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The decision applies the Court&#039;s earlier binding view on depreciation and treats business-retained surplus as part of capital employed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:51:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (9) TMI 68 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29402</link>
      <description>Initial depreciation is required to be deducted while computing the written down value of assets for capital computation under the 1949 Rules, and the point was decided in favour of the Revenue. Retained profits placed in fixed deposits for future expansion and business needs were treated as moneys required for the purposes of the business, including working capital, meeting liabilities, reducing borrowings and financing development, so they were not excludable from capital employed under rule 3(5) and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The decision applies the Court&#039;s earlier binding view on depreciation and treats business-retained surplus as part of capital employed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29402</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>