<?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>2009 (5) TMI 29 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33589</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision regarding the applicability of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, allowing for the treatment of unpaid bottling fees upon furnishing a bank guarantee. The Court remitted the issue of depreciation on research and development assets back to the Assessing Officer for further examination to determine if deductions should be granted based on evidence of machinery usage provided by the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 29 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33589</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision regarding the applicability of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, allowing for the treatment of unpaid bottling fees upon furnishing a bank guarantee. The Court remitted the issue of depreciation on research and development assets back to the Assessing Officer for further examination to determine if deductions should be granted based on evidence of machinery usage provided by the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>