'Used' under s.32 means actual business use, not mere readiness, so depreciation disallowed for unused vehicle

HC held that the term "used" in s.32 requires actual use of a vehicle in the business, not mere readiness for use, so an assessee cannot claim depreciation where the asset was only ready but not actually employed. The court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal in limine.

---

---

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal, stating that the term "used" in relation to claiming depreciation on assets means actual use for business purposes, not just being ready for use. The judgment of Whittle Anderson Ltd. v. CIT was considered, but the court emphasized the distinction between "use" and "used." The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

---