<?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 (12) TMI 172 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34172</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the fluid bed drier does not qualify as an energy-saving device eligible for 100% depreciation under the Income-tax Rules. The order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The court emphasized that the depreciation table specifies the equipment eligible for depreciation, and the fluid bed drier is not included in that list.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (12) TMI 172 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34172</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the fluid bed drier does not qualify as an energy-saving device eligible for 100% depreciation under the Income-tax Rules. The order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The court emphasized that the depreciation table specifies the equipment eligible for depreciation, and the fluid bed drier is not included in that list.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34172</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>