<?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 (4) TMI 1334 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303883</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, allowing the appeal and granting the additional depreciation claim. The judgment emphasized the significance of the installation date over the acquisition year for determining eligibility for additional depreciation benefits, aligning with the legislative intent to encourage investment in the manufacturing sector.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2022 08:19:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688479" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 1334 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303883</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, allowing the appeal and granting the additional depreciation claim. The judgment emphasized the significance of the installation date over the acquisition year for determining eligibility for additional depreciation benefits, aligning with the legislative intent to encourage investment in the manufacturing sector.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>