https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13923 The court ruled against the respondent-assessee, determining that the building provided for the manager's residence was not used solely for that purpose due to the occupancy of his minor sons who were admitted to the benefits of partnership. As a result, the respondent was denied the higher depreciation rate of 20% under section 32(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The decision favored the Revenue, with each party bearing its own costs. en-us Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 11:13:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13923 The court ruled against the respondent-assessee, determining that the building provided for the manager's residence was not used solely for that purpose due to the occupancy of his minor sons who were admitted to the benefits of partnership. As a result, the respondent was denied the higher depreciation rate of 20% under section 32(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The decision favored the Revenue, with each party bearing its own costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 29 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13923