<?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 189 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33987</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that hospitals should not be considered as &quot;welfare centres&quot; for claiming higher depreciation rates on furniture and fittings under the Income-tax Act. Despite acknowledging potential discrepancies in depreciation rates for various establishments, the court emphasized strict interpretation of the relevant provisions and decided in favor of the Revenue. Consequently, the tax case appeals were allowed in favor of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 189 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33987</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that hospitals should not be considered as &quot;welfare centres&quot; for claiming higher depreciation rates on furniture and fittings under the Income-tax Act. Despite acknowledging potential discrepancies in depreciation rates for various establishments, the court emphasized strict interpretation of the relevant provisions and decided in favor of the Revenue. Consequently, the tax case appeals were allowed in favor of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>