https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5525 For foreign shipping companies using separate Indian accounts, Central Board instructions under rule 33 were treated as a valid clarification of the residual computation power and not as inconsistent with section 10(2)(vi) or proviso (c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The instructions were held to be binding because they addressed a special situation not expressly covered by the Act or Rules, including ship-wise depreciation and allocation of unabsorbed depreciation. Unabsorbed depreciation attached to a ship could be carried forward only against that same ship and only if it was employed in the Indian trade in the later year, so the set-off claimed for ships not so employed was disallowed. en-us Tue, 09 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Jan 2015 17:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5525 For foreign shipping companies using separate Indian accounts, Central Board instructions under rule 33 were treated as a valid clarification of the residual computation power and not as inconsistent with section 10(2)(vi) or proviso (c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The instructions were held to be binding because they addressed a special situation not expressly covered by the Act or Rules, including ship-wise depreciation and allocation of unabsorbed depreciation. Unabsorbed depreciation attached to a ship could be carried forward only against that same ship and only if it was employed in the Indian trade in the later year, so the set-off claimed for ships not so employed was disallowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 09 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5525