https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469917 Depreciation on a project road under section 32 was the central issue, with the assessee claiming the asset should qualify for depreciation rather than amortisation over the concession period. The Tribunal noted that in later years the Revenue had accepted depreciation at 10% by treating the road as a building and, following PCIT v. GVK Jaipur Expressway, accepted the assessee's alternative classification. It held that the project road was entitled to depreciation at 10% as a building, not as plant and machinery or an intangible asset, and the appeals were partly allowed. en-us Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jul 2026 20:43:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469917 Depreciation on a project road under section 32 was the central issue, with the assessee claiming the asset should qualify for depreciation rather than amortisation over the concession period. The Tribunal noted that in later years the Revenue had accepted depreciation at 10% by treating the road as a building and, following PCIT v. GVK Jaipur Expressway, accepted the assessee's alternative classification. It held that the project road was entitled to depreciation at 10% as a building, not as plant and machinery or an intangible asset, and the appeals were partly allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469917