https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250255 A substituted tax provision did not materially differ from the earlier text for the relevant deduction, so the amendment could not be used to deny an already available benefit. Depreciation was allowable where machinery was owned by the assessee and used in its business, even though it was installed at a contractor's premises for manufacturing the assessee's products. Expenditure on demonstration equipment was treated as revenue in nature because the equipment formed part of stock-in-trade and was used to promote sales, rather than acquiring the character of a capital asset. The assessee's claims for deduction and depreciation were therefore upheld on the stated legal principles. en-us Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 May 2015 16:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250255 A substituted tax provision did not materially differ from the earlier text for the relevant deduction, so the amendment could not be used to deny an already available benefit. Depreciation was allowable where machinery was owned by the assessee and used in its business, even though it was installed at a contractor's premises for manufacturing the assessee's products. Expenditure on demonstration equipment was treated as revenue in nature because the equipment formed part of stock-in-trade and was used to promote sales, rather than acquiring the character of a capital asset. The assessee's claims for deduction and depreciation were therefore upheld on the stated legal principles. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 15 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250255