https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309387 Explanation 5 to section 32(1) was treated as applying to the whole sub-section, including clause (iia), so additional depreciation could be allowed even without a specific claim in the return. On the expenditure side, exploration and development costs were held not disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) where the operator maintained the accounts and complied with TDS requirements under the contractual arrangement. Time cost expenses charged by the operator to the unincorporated joint venture were also upheld as allowable, and parent company overhead expenditure was found not to be barred by section 44C. The common appellate order was substantially sustained. en-us Wed, 07 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Aug 2023 21:29:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309387 Explanation 5 to section 32(1) was treated as applying to the whole sub-section, including clause (iia), so additional depreciation could be allowed even without a specific claim in the return. On the expenditure side, exploration and development costs were held not disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) where the operator maintained the accounts and complied with TDS requirements under the contractual arrangement. Time cost expenses charged by the operator to the unincorporated joint venture were also upheld as allowable, and parent company overhead expenditure was found not to be barred by section 44C. The common appellate order was substantially sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309387