https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5665 The Supreme Court upheld the decision that a sum paid for additional construction of a building was rightly included in the cost of the building for claiming depreciation. The court emphasized that the payment was for creating a business asset, allowing the assessee to claim depreciation on it. The court rejected the argument that the payment should be added to the cost of the land, distinguishing between the cost of land and building for depreciation purposes. The court clarified that the amount paid for construction was a legitimate part of the construction cost eligible for depreciation. en-us Wed, 06 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5665 The Supreme Court upheld the decision that a sum paid for additional construction of a building was rightly included in the cost of the building for claiming depreciation. The court emphasized that the payment was for creating a business asset, allowing the assessee to claim depreciation on it. The court rejected the argument that the payment should be added to the cost of the land, distinguishing between the cost of land and building for depreciation purposes. The court clarified that the amount paid for construction was a legitimate part of the construction cost eligible for depreciation. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5665