https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21965 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that they were entitled to claim depreciation on capital expenditure for renovating leasehold premises, despite not conducting business directly from those premises. The court emphasized that the legislative intent of section 32(1A) was to allow depreciation for such capital expenses, even if the business was not carried out on-site. The decision aimed to prevent inconsistencies and align with the legislative scheme. No costs were awarded. en-us Wed, 27 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:42:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21965 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that they were entitled to claim depreciation on capital expenditure for renovating leasehold premises, despite not conducting business directly from those premises. The court emphasized that the legislative intent of section 32(1A) was to allow depreciation for such capital expenses, even if the business was not carried out on-site. The decision aimed to prevent inconsistencies and align with the legislative scheme. No costs were awarded. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 27 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21965