https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19856 Depreciation under the Income-tax Act was confined to the owner of the asset, so a fractional owner of rice mill assets could not claim depreciation on a partial share. The Court treated the ownership requirement in the 1922 and 1961 Acts as substantively the same and applied the later Supreme Court ruling on fractional ownership. It also recognised that a subsequent authoritative Supreme Court decision can justify rectification under section 154 where the earlier assessment is contrary to declared law, and upheld refusal to refer questions under section 256(1) because the Tribunal had followed binding precedent. en-us Mon, 18 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:23:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19856 Depreciation under the Income-tax Act was confined to the owner of the asset, so a fractional owner of rice mill assets could not claim depreciation on a partial share. The Court treated the ownership requirement in the 1922 and 1961 Acts as substantively the same and applied the later Supreme Court ruling on fractional ownership. It also recognised that a subsequent authoritative Supreme Court decision can justify rectification under section 154 where the earlier assessment is contrary to declared law, and upheld refusal to refer questions under section 256(1) because the Tribunal had followed binding precedent. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 18 Apr 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19856