https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21458 HC held the assessee entitled to depreciation on plant and machinery under s. 32(1)(ii) for AY 1968-69, despite not having claimed 100% depreciation under the proviso in the earlier year, as the proviso confers an additional, not exclusive, benefit. The question on s. 80J relief was treated as academic; for s. 80-I, profits must be computed after deducting depreciation. The assessment made u/s 143(3) after setting aside the ex parte order u/s 144 by recourse to s. 146 was upheld as valid. The HC held that levy of interest u/s 217 can be challenged on the ground of non-liability. The Tribunal erred in refusing to admit a pure question-of-law additional ground, but commission income as selling agent of a foreign company was held not eligible for deduction u/s 80-I. en-us Wed, 22 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Dec 2025 19:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21458 HC held the assessee entitled to depreciation on plant and machinery under s. 32(1)(ii) for AY 1968-69, despite not having claimed 100% depreciation under the proviso in the earlier year, as the proviso confers an additional, not exclusive, benefit. The question on s. 80J relief was treated as academic; for s. 80-I, profits must be computed after deducting depreciation. The assessment made u/s 143(3) after setting aside the ex parte order u/s 144 by recourse to s. 146 was upheld as valid. The HC held that levy of interest u/s 217 can be challenged on the ground of non-liability. The Tribunal erred in refusing to admit a pure question-of-law additional ground, but commission income as selling agent of a foreign company was held not eligible for deduction u/s 80-I. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21458