<?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>1999 (6) TMI 45 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56229</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed depreciation on discarded assets of capital nature for the assessment year 1990-91, emphasizing that depreciation should be allowed on the written down value of block assets, not individual assets. It held that depreciation must be allowed for the entire block of depreciable assets, even if a specific asset within the block is not used during the year. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to permit the claimed depreciation as the scrap value of the discarded machinery was not yet determined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Dec 2010 14:50:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=94691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (6) TMI 45 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56229</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed depreciation on discarded assets of capital nature for the assessment year 1990-91, emphasizing that depreciation should be allowed on the written down value of block assets, not individual assets. It held that depreciation must be allowed for the entire block of depreciable assets, even if a specific asset within the block is not used during the year. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to permit the claimed depreciation as the scrap value of the discarded machinery was not yet determined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56229</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>