https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779739 Depreciation on the Dharuhera unit was treated as allowable under the block of assets concept, so it could not be denied merely because particular assets were discarded during the year or were no longer individually used. A separate AMP adjustment was also not warranted where the distribution business had already been benchmarked, and the court followed binding precedent that rejected an upward AMP adjustment based on the Bright Line Test. The proposed addition of 20% of reimbursement expenses for further benchmarking likewise did not survive, as the Bright Line Test approach to AMP benchmarking had already been held legally unsustainable in the assessee's own case. No substantial question of law survived for adjudication. en-us Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Oct 2025 09:01:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779739 Depreciation on the Dharuhera unit was treated as allowable under the block of assets concept, so it could not be denied merely because particular assets were discarded during the year or were no longer individually used. A separate AMP adjustment was also not warranted where the distribution business had already been benchmarked, and the court followed binding precedent that rejected an upward AMP adjustment based on the Bright Line Test. The proposed addition of 20% of reimbursement expenses for further benchmarking likewise did not survive, as the Bright Line Test approach to AMP benchmarking had already been held legally unsustainable in the assessee's own case. No substantial question of law survived for adjudication. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779739