<?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>2024 (1) TMI 993 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448594</link>
    <description>ITAT Delhi addressed three issues in this case. For deduction u/s 35(2AB) regarding scientific research expenditure, the Tribunal noted that approval by DSIR was not obtained and a related matter concerning R&amp;amp;D Centre exclusion was pending before Delhi HC. Following judicial discipline, ITAT restored the matter to AO for re-computation after HC decision. Regarding depreciation on goodwill disallowance, ITAT directed AO to delete the addition and allow depreciation following consistent precedent from assessee&#039;s own case. For additional depreciation claim at 10%, ITAT remanded the matter to AO for merit consideration, following coordinate bench reasoning from earlier years, as revenue provided no distinguishing material.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2024 12:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=741143" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 993 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448594</link>
      <description>ITAT Delhi addressed three issues in this case. For deduction u/s 35(2AB) regarding scientific research expenditure, the Tribunal noted that approval by DSIR was not obtained and a related matter concerning R&amp;amp;D Centre exclusion was pending before Delhi HC. Following judicial discipline, ITAT restored the matter to AO for re-computation after HC decision. Regarding depreciation on goodwill disallowance, ITAT directed AO to delete the addition and allow depreciation following consistent precedent from assessee&#039;s own case. For additional depreciation claim at 10%, ITAT remanded the matter to AO for merit consideration, following coordinate bench reasoning from earlier years, as revenue provided no distinguishing material.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=448594</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>