https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5193 The second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 applies only to the extent depreciation has actually been allowed to the assessee. Where a firm acquired trucks from a Hindu undivided family after the written down value had already been exhausted in the family's hands, the firm's actual cost was nil and no depreciation could have been allowed to it. Because the firm and the Hindu undivided family were distinct assessable entities, depreciation allowed to the earlier owner could not be treated as depreciation allowed to the firm. The surplus on sale was therefore outside the balancing charge provision and was not taxable on that footing. en-us Fri, 03 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5193 The second proviso to section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 applies only to the extent depreciation has actually been allowed to the assessee. Where a firm acquired trucks from a Hindu undivided family after the written down value had already been exhausted in the family's hands, the firm's actual cost was nil and no depreciation could have been allowed to it. Because the firm and the Hindu undivided family were distinct assessable entities, depreciation allowed to the earlier owner could not be treated as depreciation allowed to the firm. The surplus on sale was therefore outside the balancing charge provision and was not taxable on that footing. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 03 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5193