<?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>1996 (8) TMI 141 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60931</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh considered the interpretation of provisions related to depreciation allowance under the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1989-90. The issue centered on whether the new scheme of depreciation, allowing for depreciation on a block of assets, eliminated the application of section 38(2) for assets used partly for personal purposes. The Tribunal held that assets within blocks retained individual identities and section 38(2) still applied, requiring a fair proportion of depreciation to be disallowed for mixed-use assets. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of a portion of claimed depreciation, partly allowing one appeal and dismissing the other.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2011 16:39:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99378" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 141 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60931</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh considered the interpretation of provisions related to depreciation allowance under the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1989-90. The issue centered on whether the new scheme of depreciation, allowing for depreciation on a block of assets, eliminated the application of section 38(2) for assets used partly for personal purposes. The Tribunal held that assets within blocks retained individual identities and section 38(2) still applied, requiring a fair proportion of depreciation to be disallowed for mixed-use assets. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of a portion of claimed depreciation, partly allowing one appeal and dismissing the other.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60931</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>