<?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>1995 (9) TMI 89 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55535</link>
    <description>Specialised gas cylinders and tankers used to transport hazardous ammonia gas were treated as falling within the relevant depreciation entry, and 100% depreciation was allowed because the Revenue showed no distinguishing feature from earlier Ahmedabad Bench precedent. By contrast, depreciation on eight trucks/tankers was denied because mere readiness for use was insufficient on the facts: the agreement did not prove actual deployment, no trips had commenced for those vehicles, and no business use was established. Applying the requirement that an asset must be used for business purposes, the Tribunal held that the authorities relied on by the assessee did not assist it on these facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Nov 2010 15:48:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 89 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55535</link>
      <description>Specialised gas cylinders and tankers used to transport hazardous ammonia gas were treated as falling within the relevant depreciation entry, and 100% depreciation was allowed because the Revenue showed no distinguishing feature from earlier Ahmedabad Bench precedent. By contrast, depreciation on eight trucks/tankers was denied because mere readiness for use was insufficient on the facts: the agreement did not prove actual deployment, no trips had commenced for those vehicles, and no business use was established. Applying the requirement that an asset must be used for business purposes, the Tribunal held that the authorities relied on by the assessee did not assist it on these facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55535</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>