Depreciation allowance cannot be curtailed for part-year use unless the statute expressly permits apportionment.

Depreciation under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 could not be proportionately reduced merely because the factory worked only for part of the year. Read with Section 10(3), the limitation on allowance where property is not wholly used was construed as referring to use for other purposes, not mere non-use throughout the whole year. The statute did not permit apportionment on equitable grounds alone. The assessee was entitled to full depreciation, and the reference was answered in the affirmative.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the full depreciation allowance under Section 10(2)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, notwithstanding that the factory worked only for a part of the year.

Analysis: The allowance for depreciation under Section 10(2)(vi) was read with Section 10(3), but the expression limiting allowance where property is not wholly used was held to mean use for other purposes as well, and not merely non-use throughout the whole year. The provision did not authorize apportionment of depreciation merely because the machinery or factory was operational only for a portion of the year. The statutory language could not be enlarged on considerations of equity.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the full depreciation allowance and the reference was answered in the affirmative.

Ratio Decidendi: Depreciation allowance cannot be proportionately curtailed merely because an asset was used only for part of the year, unless the statute itself provides for such apportionment.

---