<?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 (10) TMI 98 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32480</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee, a company operating a sugar factory, allowing depreciation claims for defective pollution control machinery installed during the assessment year 1992-93. The court emphasized that machinery must be used for the business&#039;s purpose to qualify for depreciation, even if it becomes non-functional. It distinguished previous cases where machinery was not used at all during the year, stating that genuine installation of machinery, even if later defective, still constitutes use for business purposes. The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to grant depreciation, dismissing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=71120" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 98 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32480</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee, a company operating a sugar factory, allowing depreciation claims for defective pollution control machinery installed during the assessment year 1992-93. The court emphasized that machinery must be used for the business&#039;s purpose to qualify for depreciation, even if it becomes non-functional. It distinguished previous cases where machinery was not used at all during the year, stating that genuine installation of machinery, even if later defective, still constitutes use for business purposes. The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to grant depreciation, dismissing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>