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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    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