https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211901 Regularization fee paid to a development authority for constructing a hospital building was treated as part of the building's construction cost for depreciation purposes under section 32. The Revenue's objection that the fee was penal in nature was rejected because the claim was for depreciation, not deduction under section 37, and the payment was made to regularize construction violations rather than as a personal penalty. The Third Member view accepted that the fee was irrevocably paid, retained by the government, and sufficiently connected with the construction cost to qualify for depreciation, with the majority view favouring the assessee. en-us Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Apr 2012 08:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211901 Regularization fee paid to a development authority for constructing a hospital building was treated as part of the building's construction cost for depreciation purposes under section 32. The Revenue's objection that the fee was penal in nature was rejected because the claim was for depreciation, not deduction under section 37, and the payment was made to regularize construction violations rather than as a personal penalty. The Third Member view accepted that the fee was irrevocably paid, retained by the government, and sufficiently connected with the construction cost to qualify for depreciation, with the majority view favouring the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211901