https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767615 The Madras HC ruled on multiple tax issues. The court held machinery replacement expenditure was revenue in nature since production capacity remained unchanged, deciding against revenue authorities. For Section 35(i)(iv) benefits, the court followed precedent favoring revenue. Regarding fly ash silos, the court granted 100% depreciation as pollution control equipment, ruling against revenue. On IFCI interest payment deduction under Section 43B, the court found insufficient evidence of actual payment, deciding against the assessee. For Section 80HHC deduction calculations, the court ruled excise duty and other receipts form part of total turnover, favoring the assessee. Finally, on dumper depreciation, the court reversed the tribunal's decision due to lack of evidence establishing possession and use before the required date, ruling against the assessee. en-us Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Mar 2025 08:25:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767615 The Madras HC ruled on multiple tax issues. The court held machinery replacement expenditure was revenue in nature since production capacity remained unchanged, deciding against revenue authorities. For Section 35(i)(iv) benefits, the court followed precedent favoring revenue. Regarding fly ash silos, the court granted 100% depreciation as pollution control equipment, ruling against revenue. On IFCI interest payment deduction under Section 43B, the court found insufficient evidence of actual payment, deciding against the assessee. For Section 80HHC deduction calculations, the court ruled excise duty and other receipts form part of total turnover, favoring the assessee. Finally, on dumper depreciation, the court reversed the tribunal's decision due to lack of evidence establishing possession and use before the required date, ruling against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767615