Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
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 the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the tank claimed as a building under section 5(f) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, read with rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1955.
Analysis: The deduction for depreciation under section 5(f) is available only when the asset falls within the statutory description and the prescribed particulars are furnished. Rule 4 ties the depreciation rate to the rates prescribed under the Income-tax rules. Even assuming that the tank could be treated as a building within the Explanation to section 5(f), the assessee was still required to establish the applicable rate of depreciation under the relevant income-tax rules and to furnish the necessary particulars. No such particulars or specific claim for the applicable rate were made, and the general plea that the tank was a depreciable building was insufficient.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the claimed depreciation, and the disallowance was upheld.