<?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>1990 (10) TMI 108 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56128</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Income-tax Officer&#039;s rectification orders reducing allowable depreciation rates for a glass manufacturing company&#039;s plant and machinery. It clarified that only specific items were eligible for higher rates mentioned in the depreciation table. The CIT(A) initially canceled the rectification orders but was overturned on appeal, emphasizing the mistake&#039;s clarity and rectifiability. The Tribunal directed reconsideration of relief computation under Section 80J and interest under Section 215 in line with corrected depreciation values. The departmental appeals were allowed, with cross objections allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:20:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=94590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (10) TMI 108 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56128</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Income-tax Officer&#039;s rectification orders reducing allowable depreciation rates for a glass manufacturing company&#039;s plant and machinery. It clarified that only specific items were eligible for higher rates mentioned in the depreciation table. The CIT(A) initially canceled the rectification orders but was overturned on appeal, emphasizing the mistake&#039;s clarity and rectifiability. The Tribunal directed reconsideration of relief computation under Section 80J and interest under Section 215 in line with corrected depreciation values. The departmental appeals were allowed, with cross objections allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56128</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>