<?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>2008 (9) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30807</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow the assessee 100% depreciation, as the assets were found to have been used during the relevant period. Additionally, the Court ruled that no short-term capital gain could be taxed under Section 50(2) as the block of assets did not cease to exist during the previous year. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law for interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69461" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 17 - HIGH COURT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30807</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow the assessee 100% depreciation, as the assets were found to have been used during the relevant period. Additionally, the Court ruled that no short-term capital gain could be taxed under Section 50(2) as the block of assets did not cease to exist during the previous year. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial question of law for interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30807</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>