https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347733 Section 72A operated as a special, overriding provision for amalgamation benefits, so the assessee could not claim depreciation beyond the limit fixed in the BIFR-sanctioned rehabilitation scheme. Although written down value and depreciation might have been available in the absence of Section 72A, the statutory benefit was invoked here and the BIFR ceiling controlled the claim. The Bombay HC therefore treated the general depreciation provisions as subordinate to the amalgamation-specific regime and upheld disallowance of the excess depreciation claim. en-us Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347733 Section 72A operated as a special, overriding provision for amalgamation benefits, so the assessee could not claim depreciation beyond the limit fixed in the BIFR-sanctioned rehabilitation scheme. Although written down value and depreciation might have been available in the absence of Section 72A, the statutory benefit was invoked here and the BIFR ceiling controlled the claim. The Bombay HC therefore treated the general depreciation provisions as subordinate to the amalgamation-specific regime and upheld disallowance of the excess depreciation claim. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 07 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347733