Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act the assessee is entitled to an allowance for depreciation where the buildings, machinery or plant were not actually used in the business during the year though the assessee received share of profits from a pooling arrangement.
Analysis: The Court examined the meaning of the phrase "used for the purposes of the business" in Section 10(2)(vi) read with clause (iv) of the same subsection and applied ordinary meaning and statutory context. The Court rejected the contention that "used" meant "capable of being used" or "generally used", referring to the plain meaning of "used" as actually used and to the need to construe Section 10 in light of the Act's overall scheme and provisos governing multi-year allowances. The Court relied on precedents where machinery, plant and buildings not actually used in the relevant year could not attract depreciation allowance, and held that considerations such as insurance rates support distinguishing actual use from mere availability or non-use during the year. The admitted fact that the assessee's factory and machinery were idle during the year therefore precludes an allowance under clause (vi).
Conclusion: The words "used for the purposes of the business" in clause (vi) of Section 10(2) mean actually used; where buildings, plant or machinery were not actually used during the year no allowance for depreciation can be granted. The reference is answered against the assessee.