<?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>2018 (6) TMI 1876 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469500</link>
    <description>Beneficial ownership and business use govern depreciation claims under section 32: a motor car bought with the assessee&#039;s funds, shown as an asset in its books and used for business remained eligible despite registration in a director&#039;s name, so depreciation was allowed. Section 41(1) applies only on proven remission or cessation of a trading liability; where the liability continued in the books and was neither written back nor shown to have ceased, no tax addition arose. Website development and recurring advertisement costs were treated as revenue expenditure because they facilitated business operations without creating a capital asset, so the disallowances were deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2026 18:31:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=907809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 1876 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469500</link>
      <description>Beneficial ownership and business use govern depreciation claims under section 32: a motor car bought with the assessee&#039;s funds, shown as an asset in its books and used for business remained eligible despite registration in a director&#039;s name, so depreciation was allowed. Section 41(1) applies only on proven remission or cessation of a trading liability; where the liability continued in the books and was neither written back nor shown to have ceased, no tax addition arose. Website development and recurring advertisement costs were treated as revenue expenditure because they facilitated business operations without creating a capital asset, so the disallowances were deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>