https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19496 Where the Revenue had accepted the assessee's ownership of a discarded property built on a leased terrace for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it could not deny the consequential balancing allowance under section 32(1)(iii). The Bombay HC treated the allowance as a direct consequence of the same ownership position and the depreciation already granted, and rejected the inconsistent stance that the asset could be regarded as owned for one purpose but not for the other. The assessee was therefore entitled to balancing allowance on the discarded asset. en-us Wed, 23 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:01:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19496 Where the Revenue had accepted the assessee's ownership of a discarded property built on a leased terrace for depreciation under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it could not deny the consequential balancing allowance under section 32(1)(iii). The Bombay HC treated the allowance as a direct consequence of the same ownership position and the depreciation already granted, and rejected the inconsistent stance that the asset could be regarded as owned for one purpose but not for the other. The assessee was therefore entitled to balancing allowance on the discarded asset. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 23 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19496