https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276424 Depreciation not absorbed in the earlier year because there were no profits was not depreciation "actually allowed" for computing the subsequent year's written down value. The Calcutta HC held that section 10(5)(b) uses the unambiguous expression "actually allowed" to mean depreciation in fact given effect to by being set off against profits or gains in assessable income, not depreciation merely allowable in law. As the earlier allowance could not be absorbed, it could not reduce the later written down value. The reference was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 05 Aug 1948 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Nov 2018 13:23:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276424 Depreciation not absorbed in the earlier year because there were no profits was not depreciation "actually allowed" for computing the subsequent year's written down value. The Calcutta HC held that section 10(5)(b) uses the unambiguous expression "actually allowed" to mean depreciation in fact given effect to by being set off against profits or gains in assessable income, not depreciation merely allowable in law. As the earlier allowance could not be absorbed, it could not reduce the later written down value. The reference was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 05 Aug 1948 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276424