https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7708 Written down value of depreciable assets was held to be their actual cost where no depreciation had in fact been allowed during the exempt period, because the scheme required deduction only of depreciation actually allowed and not merely allowable. A partner was not permitted to set off a share of loss from an agricultural concern assessed as an unregistered firm against personal income, since the statutory scheme confined that loss to the firm. For a seasonal factory working double shift, extra depreciation was not a flat 50% of normal depreciation; it had to follow the proportionate rule tied to normal working days. The depreciation issue was answered in favour of the assessee, while the set-off and double-shift claims failed. en-us Thu, 05 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7708 Written down value of depreciable assets was held to be their actual cost where no depreciation had in fact been allowed during the exempt period, because the scheme required deduction only of depreciation actually allowed and not merely allowable. A partner was not permitted to set off a share of loss from an agricultural concern assessed as an unregistered firm against personal income, since the statutory scheme confined that loss to the firm. For a seasonal factory working double shift, extra depreciation was not a flat 50% of normal depreciation; it had to follow the proportionate rule tied to normal working days. The depreciation issue was answered in favour of the assessee, while the set-off and double-shift claims failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 05 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7708