https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788909 A right to collect toll was treated as a business right qualifying as an intangible asset, so depreciation at 25% and related additional depreciation were allowed. Subsidy received from NHAI was required to be reduced from project cost under Explanation 10 to section 43(1), so depreciation based on the unreduced cost was disallowed. Provision for resurfacing expenses was held to be an uncertain, contingent liability rather than an ascertained deductible expense, and depreciation on the capitalised negative grant and related carriageway amount payable to NHAI was also denied because the future liability had not crystallised. Additions arising from the quantum assessment were accepted for enhanced section 80IA deduction, and penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable because mere rejection of a claim does not establish concealment. en-us Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Mar 2026 08:27:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788909 A right to collect toll was treated as a business right qualifying as an intangible asset, so depreciation at 25% and related additional depreciation were allowed. Subsidy received from NHAI was required to be reduced from project cost under Explanation 10 to section 43(1), so depreciation based on the unreduced cost was disallowed. Provision for resurfacing expenses was held to be an uncertain, contingent liability rather than an ascertained deductible expense, and depreciation on the capitalised negative grant and related carriageway amount payable to NHAI was also denied because the future liability had not crystallised. Additions arising from the quantum assessment were accepted for enhanced section 80IA deduction, and penalty under section 271(1)(c) was held unsustainable because mere rejection of a claim does not establish concealment. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 27 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788909