<?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>2003 (1) TMI 239 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60141</link>
    <description>Deduction under section 80-IA was held available for the assessee&#039;s hotel business because the venture was not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business. The earlier hotel had ceased on liquidation, and the property later remained with the Government and then the lessee company without hotel operations. The building was not shown to have been transferred as a hotel undertaking, and no hotel plant, machinery or equipment of the earlier business was transferred. The phrase &quot;previously used&quot; was read as referring to use immediately before formation of the new business, and that requirement was not met. On those facts, the disallowance was unsustainable and the deduction was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 18:33:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=98590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 239 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60141</link>
      <description>Deduction under section 80-IA was held available for the assessee&#039;s hotel business because the venture was not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business. The earlier hotel had ceased on liquidation, and the property later remained with the Government and then the lessee company without hotel operations. The building was not shown to have been transferred as a hotel undertaking, and no hotel plant, machinery or equipment of the earlier business was transferred. The phrase &quot;previously used&quot; was read as referring to use immediately before formation of the new business, and that requirement was not met. On those facts, the disallowance was unsustainable and the deduction was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>