Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The HC upheld the assessee's claim for depreciation on revalued assets based on the actual cost paid to the erstwhile partners, rejecting the denial under Explanation 3 to Section 43(1). The court clarified that Rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, limits aggregate depreciation to the actual cost of the asset, which, in this case, corresponds to the valuation agreed upon in April 1982 when the original partnership was reconstituted. Despite the dissolution of the original firm in 1984 and changes in partnership, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation for subsequent years on the actual cost paid. The court further held that familial relationships among partners do not affect this entitlement under the Act. The questions of law were decided in favor of the assessee, affirming the right to depreciation on the revalued asset cost.
The HC upheld the assessee's claim for depreciation on revalued assets based on the actual cost paid to the erstwhile partners, rejecting the denial under Explanation 3 to Section 43(1). The court clarified that Rule 5 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, limits aggregate depreciation to the actual cost of the asset, which, in this case, corresponds to the valuation agreed upon in April 1982 when the original partnership was reconstituted. Despite the dissolution of the original firm in 1984 and changes in partnership, the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation for subsequent years on the actual cost paid. The court further held that familial relationships among partners do not affect this entitlement under the Act. The questions of law were decided in favor of the assessee, affirming the right to depreciation on the revalued asset cost.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
