https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59971 The appeal was partly allowed in this case. The court upheld the Revenue's challenge regarding the initial depreciation on meters, finding the claim inadmissible as the deduction exceeded the asset's actual cost. However, the court supported the CIT(A)'s decision on legal expenses for Indianisation, deeming them necessary for the business and not for acquiring enduring capital assets. Additionally, the court ruled in favor of the assessee on the levy of interest under s. 216, finding the initial tax estimate was revised after a government-approved rate increase and not intentionally understated. en-us Wed, 09 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jan 2011 11:14:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59971 The appeal was partly allowed in this case. The court upheld the Revenue's challenge regarding the initial depreciation on meters, finding the claim inadmissible as the deduction exceeded the asset's actual cost. However, the court supported the CIT(A)'s decision on legal expenses for Indianisation, deeming them necessary for the business and not for acquiring enduring capital assets. Additionally, the court ruled in favor of the assessee on the levy of interest under s. 216, finding the initial tax estimate was revised after a government-approved rate increase and not intentionally understated. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 09 Jun 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59971