https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22176 The court ruled in favor of the assessee on all three issues presented. In relation to the second issue concerning depreciation and investment allowance on a capitalised amount under a deferred payment scheme, the court held that the full amount paid in instalments constituted the actual cost of the machinery, rejecting the Revenue's argument that these amounts were interest payments. The court emphasized that ownership transferred upon delivery of the machinery, distinguishing between interest payable on belated payments and concessions in lump sum payments. Consequently, the court allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation and investment allowance on the capitalised amount paid in instalments for the machinery. en-us Mon, 04 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:03:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22176 The court ruled in favor of the assessee on all three issues presented. In relation to the second issue concerning depreciation and investment allowance on a capitalised amount under a deferred payment scheme, the court held that the full amount paid in instalments constituted the actual cost of the machinery, rejecting the Revenue's argument that these amounts were interest payments. The court emphasized that ownership transferred upon delivery of the machinery, distinguishing between interest payable on belated payments and concessions in lump sum payments. Consequently, the court allowed the assessee's claim for depreciation and investment allowance on the capitalised amount paid in instalments for the machinery. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 04 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22176