https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774991 The Madras HC ruled in favor of the assessee regarding depreciation claims on revalued assets under Section 43(1) explanation 3. The case involved a partnership firm that was reconstituted in 1982 with asset revaluation, where three of five partners retired and the remaining two continued until 1984. The assessee claimed depreciation for assessment year 1985-86 based on the revalued amounts paid to former partners. The HC held that under Section 32 read with Rule 5 of Income Tax Rules 1962, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on actual cost paid for assets, which was the revaluation amount from April 1982. The court emphasized that aggregate depreciation cannot exceed actual asset cost, and family relationships between partners do not create statutory exclusions. The judgment favored the assessee on all legal questions framed. en-us Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jul 2025 08:19:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774991 The Madras HC ruled in favor of the assessee regarding depreciation claims on revalued assets under Section 43(1) explanation 3. The case involved a partnership firm that was reconstituted in 1982 with asset revaluation, where three of five partners retired and the remaining two continued until 1984. The assessee claimed depreciation for assessment year 1985-86 based on the revalued amounts paid to former partners. The HC held that under Section 32 read with Rule 5 of Income Tax Rules 1962, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on actual cost paid for assets, which was the revaluation amount from April 1982. The court emphasized that aggregate depreciation cannot exceed actual asset cost, and family relationships between partners do not create statutory exclusions. The judgment favored the assessee on all legal questions framed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 08 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774991