https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20892 HC held that the Tribunal erred in refusing to entertain the assessee's alternative contention that, if the impugned expenditure were treated as capital, depreciation and development rebate must be allowed. Such a direction was within the Tribunal's duty under s. 33(4). On merits, HC held the capital expenditure on freight, customs duty and related charges incurred to transport and install gifted machinery formed part of its "actual cost" under s. 43(1) for purposes of depreciation and development rebate, notwithstanding that the machinery was received by gift. All questions were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. en-us Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Dec 2025 23:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20892 HC held that the Tribunal erred in refusing to entertain the assessee's alternative contention that, if the impugned expenditure were treated as capital, depreciation and development rebate must be allowed. Such a direction was within the Tribunal's duty under s. 33(4). On merits, HC held the capital expenditure on freight, customs duty and related charges incurred to transport and install gifted machinery formed part of its "actual cost" under s. 43(1) for purposes of depreciation and development rebate, notwithstanding that the machinery was received by gift. All questions were answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20892