Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 33 "Deduction for depreciation" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      21 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 33 Deduction for depreciation.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 33 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) provides for deduction in respect of depreciation for assets used in the business or profession. It covers both tangible assets (buildings, machinery, plant, furniture) and intangible assets (know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or similar business/commercial rights), expressly excluding goodwill. The deduction applies to assets "owned wholly or partly by the assessee and used wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession." The clause sets out special rules for undertakings engaged in generation or generation and distribution of power, rules for blocks of assets, proportionate restriction where assets are partly used, limits when actual cost is allowed u/s 54, a 50% restriction for assets acquired and used for less than 180 days during the tax year, treatment in cases of succession/amalgamation/demerger, leasehold improvements, additional deduction for new machinery/plant in certain businesses, allowance on shortfall between WDV and sale/scrap proceeds, carry-forward of disallowed depreciation, and definitions including "assets," "know-how" and "sold."

      Interpretation

      The clause employs common tax-law constructs: depreciation allowances are determined at prescribed percentages (for blocks and for certain power undertakings), pro rata allocation where assets move between related entities, and ceilings when assets are used for part of a year. Legislative intent, as expressed, is to allow systematic write-downs on capital assets used in business, while providing enhanced incentives (additional deduction) for acquisition and installation of qualifying new plant and machinery used in manufacturing or power businesses. The Bill treats depreciation as a statutory deduction determined by prescribed rates and subject to limiting conditions (usage, prior allowances, reorganisation rules). No extrinsic legislative history or purpose beyond the text is stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The text contains several carve-outs and conditions:

      • Intangible assets: Goodwill is excluded from depreciation.
      • Section 54 interaction: Where deduction of actual cost for machinery/plant is allowed u/s 54, no deduction under Clause 33(3)(c) is allowed.
      • Short-use restriction: Where an asset is acquired and put to use for less than 180 days in the tax year, the general deduction rate is halved (50% restriction) as detailed in sub-section (4).
      • Additional deduction for new machinery/plant is subject to multiple conditions, including nature of business (manufacturing/production or power), first use by the assessee, non-use by any other person earlier, not being ship/aircraft/office appliances/road transport vehicle/office premises/residential accommodation, and not being of a class where whole cost is fully deductible.
      • Where profits before depreciation are less than allowable depreciation, the deduction is limited (no deduction if profits are a loss); unallowed amounts are carried forward to succeeding years with specified deemed treatment.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A manufacturing assessee purchases and installs qualifying new machinery on 1 July in the tax year and uses it wholly in the trade. If used for >180 days that year, the assessee is entitled to normal depreciation at prescribed rate plus an additional deduction equal to 20% of actual cost in the year of acquisition (subject to all qualifying conditions being met).
      • Example 2: A company acquires a building in October and it is used for business for less than 180 days in that tax year. Depreciation allowed for that year is limited to 50% of the prescribed rate applicable to such asset.
      • Example 3: On amalgamation, the aggregate depreciation claim by amalgamating and amalgamated company is to be allowed on a pro rata basis based on days of use by each; in this Bill text the allowable deduction calculated at prescribed rates "shall be allowed on pro rata basis."

      Interplay

      Clause 33 cross-references other statutory provisions: section 54 (for exclusion where actual cost deduction already allowed), section 70(1)(zd)/(ze)/(zf) and section 313 (for successions), and section 41(1) (for definition of written down value - parenthesis references a table entry). It also subjects the carry-forward rule to sections 112(3) and 113(4). No Rules or Notifications are expressly referenced in the Old Version beyond these section cross-references. Any interaction with tax rates "as prescribed" indicates subordinate legislation or rules will determine percentages; those prescriptions are not contained in the Bill text.

      Differences between Section 33 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed] and Clause 33 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      • Wording and Terminology: The As Passed version (Section 33) uses the phrase "Deduction for depreciation" and repeatedly refers to "deduction" throughout. The Old Version (Clause 33) alternates between "deduction" and the term "depreciation" in provisions (e.g., sub-sections (2), (3)(a), (10), (11)).
        • Practical impact: Possible drafting inconsistency in the Bill that may affect interpretation of whether a provision addresses the allowable deduction or the accounting concept of depreciation; the As Passed text standardises on "deduction."
      • Scope of assets in sub-section (1)(b): Clause 33 (Old Version) omits the specific temporal phrase present in Section 33 (As Passed) that the intangible assets are "acquired on or after the 1st April, 1998."
        • Practical impact: The As Passed text narrows the applicability of depreciation deduction for intangibles to those acquired on or after 1 April 1998; the Bill's Old Version (by omission) would read more broadly unless another provision elsewhere limits it. This is a material substantive change if the omission in the Bill were retained.
      • Sub-section cross-references and coverage in clause (3)/(4): In the Old Version, sub-section (4) restricts the deduction when asset is referred to in "sub-sections (1), (2) and (8)." In the As Passed version, sub-section (4) restricts the deduction if such asset is "being asset referred to in sub-sections (2) and (3)."
        • Practical impact: The set of assets qualifying for the 50% restriction differs between the drafts. The Bill would have applied limitation additionally to assets in sub-section (1) and (8); the As Passed version applies it to assets under (2) and (3). This changes which new/particular categories (e.g., new plant under (8)) get the half-rate limitation when used <180 days or acquired in the year.
      • Proviso on block of assets wording: Clause 33(3)(b) refers to "any asset forming part of the block of assets" and restricts "deduction allowable" to proportionate part determined by AO. In Section 33(3)(b) the As Passed text refers to "when any building, machinery, plant or furniture is partly, or not wholly and exclusively, used... the deduction under clause (a) shall be restricted to the fair proportionate part thereof as determined by the Assessing Officer."
        • Practical impact: As Passed emphasizes particular tangible asset categories, whereas the Bill language is broader (any asset forming part of block). Possible interpretive impact on whether intangible assets in block could be subject to the same proportionate restriction under Clause 33 Bill language; As Passed confines it to tangible categories listed.
      • Succession/amalgamation/demerger aggregation rule (sub-section (5)): The As Passed text caps aggregate deduction for predecessor and successor (or amalgamating / amalgamated etc.) not to exceed deduction calculated at prescribed rates "as if the succession, amalgamation or demerger had not taken place," and specifies pro rata allocation. The Old Version states the allowable deduction calculated at prescribed rates "shall be allowed on pro rata basis" and lists the parties.
        • Practical impact: The As Passed expressly places a ceiling (shall not exceed) the deduction calculated as if reorganisation had not occurred; the Bill reads as an entitlement but lacks the explicit "shall not exceed" ceiling language. This may affect aggregate deduction in reorganisations - the As Passed expressly prevents duplication of full deductions among entities post-reorganisation.
      • Sub-section numbering and structural variations (sub-section 8-11): The Old Version uses different sequencing and slightly different phrasing for the additional deduction for new machinery (sub-section (8) and (9)) and the carry-forward rules for unallowed depreciation (sub-section (11)). The As Passed consolidates and clarifies some conditions (for example, additional deduction prohibitions list in (8)(d) differs in ordering and phrasing).
        • Practical impact: Differences are largely drafting refinements but could change scope: for instance, As Passed explicitly excludes assets "on which the whole of the actual cost is allowed as a deduction" (wording differs marginally from Old Version clause (8)(v)).
      • Definitions and cross-references (sub-section (12) and related): Clause 33(12)(d) in Old Version defines "written down value of the block of assets" with a parenthetical "(Table: Sl. No. 3)" appended to section 41(1). The As Passed references section 41(1)(c) instead.
        • Practical impact: Different cross-reference points in section 41 may alter the technical definition relied upon; this affects the computation base for written down value. The As Passed uses clause (c) whereas the Bill pointed to a table entry - potentially reconcilable but notable for practitioners verifying the exact definition source.
      • Minor drafting and consistency changes: Several clauses in the Old Version include slightly different sequencing of sub-clauses and different connective words (e.g., "further sum in addition" vs. "additional deduction," "money payable" vs. "moneys payable") whereas the As Passed uses more formalised terms.
        • Practical impact: Mostly interpretive clarity and internal consistency; the As Passed tends to be more precise in limiting and defining scope.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must track date-of-acquisition and days of use in the tax year (to ascertain applicability of 50% restriction and staged additional deduction). They must ensure whether machinery/plant has attracted any deduction u/s 54 to avoid double claims. In reorganisations, careful apportionment and proof of days of use will be required to claim pro rata depreciation.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Maintain acquisition invoices, installation records, first-use certificates, books evidencing write-offs, lease agreements and details of capital expenditure on leasehold/improvements, and records showing whether an asset was used previously by another person (for additional deduction eligibility).

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 33 provides detailed statutory rules for depreciation deductions on tangible and intangible assets used in business, excluding goodwill.
      • Special provisions apply to power-generation undertakings, blocks of assets, short-period use (<180 days) and newly acquired plant and machinery.
      • Additional deduction (20% or 10%) is available for qualifying new machinery/plant subject to several conditions intended to target manufacturing and power businesses.
      • Reorganisation events (succession, amalgamation, demerger) require pro rata allocation of depreciation between entities; the Bill text frames the pro rata allowance but differs in ceiling language from the As Passed text.
      • Carry-forward rules limit immediate claim where profits are insufficient, with unallowed amounts added and treated as depreciation in succeeding years subject to other sections.
      • Definitions of "assets," "know-how" and "sold" are specified; "written down value" is cross-referenced to section 41(1) (table reference in the Bill).
      • Prescribed rates determine many computations; absence of those prescriptions in the Bill requires reference to rules/regulations once issued.

      Full Text:

      Section 33 Deduction for depreciation.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax