https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15783 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that the one-time benefit of 40% depreciation under clause (iv) should not be deducted while determining the written down value for subsequent years under section 32(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act. The court rejected the Revenue's interpretation of Circular No. 372, emphasizing that the amendment was prospective and only affected assets with initial depreciation granted from April 1, 1984, onwards. The judgment clarified the correct application of the law for the assessment year 1984-85 and subsequent years. en-us Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Aug 2009 10:49:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15783 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that the one-time benefit of 40% depreciation under clause (iv) should not be deducted while determining the written down value for subsequent years under section 32(1)(iv) of the Income-tax Act. The court rejected the Revenue's interpretation of Circular No. 372, emphasizing that the amendment was prospective and only affected assets with initial depreciation granted from April 1, 1984, onwards. The judgment clarified the correct application of the law for the assessment year 1984-85 and subsequent years. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15783