https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442994 Depreciation was discussed in two contexts: a chemical recovery plant and brand names used in paper manufacturing. The plant depreciation was upheld because the record, including remand verification of excise entries, invoices and gate passes, supported the finding that it was put to use from 21.03.2008. Brand names were treated as trademarks and similar commercial rights within Section 32(1)(ii) read with Explanation 3(b), so they qualified as depreciable intangible assets. The article notes that the appellate challenge failed on both issues and that no substantial question of law arose. en-us Wed, 16 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 May 2024 11:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442994 Depreciation was discussed in two contexts: a chemical recovery plant and brand names used in paper manufacturing. The plant depreciation was upheld because the record, including remand verification of excise entries, invoices and gate passes, supported the finding that it was put to use from 21.03.2008. Brand names were treated as trademarks and similar commercial rights within Section 32(1)(ii) read with Explanation 3(b), so they qualified as depreciable intangible assets. The article notes that the appellate challenge failed on both issues and that no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 16 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442994