<?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>2020 (12) TMI 1413 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461481</link>
    <description>The HC quashed reassessment proceedings u/s 147 initiated by the tax officer. The court found that issues regarding depreciation on computers and foreign tax credit were identical to those examined during original assessment, with no new tangible material justifying reopening. The officer&#039;s claim that computers should attract 15% depreciation instead of 60% was rejected as computers fall under &#039;Machinery and Plant&#039; category eligible for 60% depreciation. Regarding foreign tax credit, no revenue prejudice existed as petitioner had more tax credit per Form 26AS than claimed in return. Additionally, the notice u/s 148 was issued to a non-existing entity post-amalgamation, invalidating the entire proceedings despite petitioner&#039;s response.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2025 18:56:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=812751" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (12) TMI 1413 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461481</link>
      <description>The HC quashed reassessment proceedings u/s 147 initiated by the tax officer. The court found that issues regarding depreciation on computers and foreign tax credit were identical to those examined during original assessment, with no new tangible material justifying reopening. The officer&#039;s claim that computers should attract 15% depreciation instead of 60% was rejected as computers fall under &#039;Machinery and Plant&#039; category eligible for 60% depreciation. Regarding foreign tax credit, no revenue prejudice existed as petitioner had more tax credit per Form 26AS than claimed in return. Additionally, the notice u/s 148 was issued to a non-existing entity post-amalgamation, invalidating the entire proceedings despite petitioner&#039;s response.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461481</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>