https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190205 Depreciation on assets not owned by the assessee was disallowed because the deeming clause treating the capital investment property as acquired and owned had already been considered in binding precedent. The Court rejected the attempt to distinguish that precedent on the same clause and held the claim against the assessee. Toll roads were also not accepted as plant and machinery for depreciation under the applicable schedule, as that issue too was treated as concluded by earlier authority. The appeal therefore failed, and the Tribunal's view was left undisturbed, with the substantial questions of law answered in favour of the Revenue. en-us Tue, 05 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jun 2025 18:01:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190205 Depreciation on assets not owned by the assessee was disallowed because the deeming clause treating the capital investment property as acquired and owned had already been considered in binding precedent. The Court rejected the attempt to distinguish that precedent on the same clause and held the claim against the assessee. Toll roads were also not accepted as plant and machinery for depreciation under the applicable schedule, as that issue too was treated as concluded by earlier authority. The appeal therefore failed, and the Tribunal's view was left undisturbed, with the substantial questions of law answered in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190205