https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27136 The court ruled in favor of the assessee on all issues except for the computation of disallowable perquisites under section 40(a)(v). The court held that roads within the factory premises should be treated as "plant" for depreciation and development rebate purposes. It allowed the inclusion of the increased cost of machinery due to devaluation for development rebate. The court excluded perquisites related to employees with tax-exempt salaries from disallowable perquisites calculation. Additionally, it determined that liabilities should not be deducted and average capital employed should be considered for section 80J purposes. The court also mandated the calculation of the written down value as per section 43(6) and not the method adopted by the assessee in its accounts. en-us Fri, 15 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:13:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27136 The court ruled in favor of the assessee on all issues except for the computation of disallowable perquisites under section 40(a)(v). The court held that roads within the factory premises should be treated as "plant" for depreciation and development rebate purposes. It allowed the inclusion of the increased cost of machinery due to devaluation for development rebate. The court excluded perquisites related to employees with tax-exempt salaries from disallowable perquisites calculation. Additionally, it determined that liabilities should not be deducted and average capital employed should be considered for section 80J purposes. The court also mandated the calculation of the written down value as per section 43(6) and not the method adopted by the assessee in its accounts. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 15 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27136