https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183942 The court clarified that under Sec. 10(2)(iv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, depreciation can only be claimed for machinery actively used in the business during the account year. The judgment rejected the argument that idle machinery could claim depreciation based on past use, emphasizing the need for active employment in the business. Precedents and the purpose of allowing depreciation supported this interpretation. The court ruled in favor of the Income Tax Commissioner, imposing costs on the non-applicant assessee and specifying a pleader's fee. en-us Mon, 16 Dec 1935 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Jul 2016 16:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183942 The court clarified that under Sec. 10(2)(iv) of the Indian Income Tax Act, depreciation can only be claimed for machinery actively used in the business during the account year. The judgment rejected the argument that idle machinery could claim depreciation based on past use, emphasizing the need for active employment in the business. Precedents and the purpose of allowing depreciation supported this interpretation. The court ruled in favor of the Income Tax Commissioner, imposing costs on the non-applicant assessee and specifying a pleader's fee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 16 Dec 1935 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183942