https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66913 Depreciation on an industrial shed was denied because the agreement to sell did not transfer ownership or any present proprietary interest before execution of the conveyance deed, so the assessee had only contractual possession. Capital subsidy was not required to be reduced from the cost base for depreciation, as the binding precedent applied in the assessee's favour. A claimed penalty-related disallowance was confined to the portion actually shown to be disallowable, with relief for the balance. Share application money credited in cash was sustained as unexplained cash credit because mere description could not exclude it from scrutiny and the explanation was not accepted. en-us Fri, 28 May 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Mar 2011 11:17:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66913 Depreciation on an industrial shed was denied because the agreement to sell did not transfer ownership or any present proprietary interest before execution of the conveyance deed, so the assessee had only contractual possession. Capital subsidy was not required to be reduced from the cost base for depreciation, as the binding precedent applied in the assessee's favour. A claimed penalty-related disallowance was confined to the portion actually shown to be disallowable, with relief for the balance. Share application money credited in cash was sustained as unexplained cash credit because mere description could not exclude it from scrutiny and the explanation was not accepted. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 May 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66913