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
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective GST cancellation: court limits retroactive effect, stressing objective grounds and hearing rights for taxpayers.
    The court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration cannot be applied mechanically and must be supported by objective grounds; mere non-filing does not automatically justify cancelling registration for earlier compliant periods. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity of being heard before imposing retrospective cancellation, and the temporal effect of cancellation should align with the taxpayer's cancellation application rather than an earlier retrospective date, given potential impacts such as denial of input tax credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
    The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Non transferability of CHA license: unauthorized sub letting triggered revocation, later reconsidered due to appellant hardship.
    A licensed CHA was found to have contravened CHALR by effectively transferring operational control to a Mumbai office through a Power of Attorney, breaching non transferability, CHA obligations to obtain authorisations and exercise due diligence, and supervision duties over employees; the firm was held accountable where the licence was used for financial gain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
    Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
    Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
    Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
    Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Redemption under Customs Act: deemed payment recognized as exercising the redemption option despite pandemic-related delay.
    The judgment analyzes the redemption option under the Customs Act allowing fine payment in lieu of confiscation, focusing on the prescribed timeframe and on how actions by a petitioner while seized currency remains with the department can constitute exercise of that option. Considering pandemic-related disruption, the court applied purposive interpretation and concluded the department's refusal to accept a deemed payment was unjustified and that the petitioner's steps effectively availed the statutory redemption alternative.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Duty to exercise due diligence: strict licensing compliance can justify administrative revocation and security forfeiture for brokers.
    The headnote focuses on the duty of diligence under the CBLR 2018, identifying failures to advise clients, to verify information, and to supervise employees as breaches that can attract administrative penalties against a customs broker's licence. It also confirms that regulatory action may be initiated at the broker's registered location regardless of where the underlying transactions occurred, and highlights the need for compliance programs, client advisory practices, and employee training.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory pre-deposit requirement: payments made during investigation can be counted toward the appeal pre-deposit, protecting access to appeal.
    Interpretation of the pre-deposit requirement focuses on counting payments made during investigation toward the mandatory deposit for appellate admissibility; authorities must account for investigation-stage deposits when assessing compliance to avoid denying appeal rights on technical grounds and to give effect to substantive payment.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Medicament classification confirmed for a homeopathic hair oil based on ingredients and ordinary perception under tariff law.
    Classification of a homeopathic hair oil as a medicament depends on the ingredients test and the common parlance test. The Tribunal treated AHAHO as a medicament because it contained recognised homeopathic constituents and was labelled under the homeopathic schedule; the Supreme Court affirmed that those medicinal ingredients and the product's perception as a homeopathic medicine outweigh cosmetic imagery and over the counter availability, and that tariff amendments did not change the classificatory result.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under insolvency law can be disqualified by trust and company conflicts affecting CIRP participation.
    The judgment finds that valuation disclosures and newspaper publication of Form G met CIRP regulatory requirements despite website upload issues; materially revised resolution plans must be placed before the Committee of Creditors or are procedurally irregular; commercial wisdom of the CoC governs differential treatment of creditors subject to legal compliance; promoter settlement offers and Section 12-A applications require demonstrable CoC consideration; and resolution applicant eligibility is governed by Trusts Act and Companies Act conflicts, not by assumed disqualifications absent specific disqualification orders.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Section 45 PMLA bail standard: stringent satisfaction required on non guilt and low risk of reoffence before granting bail.
    Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA requires a stringent bail standard: courts must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. An Enforcement Directorate investigation under the PMLA is distinct from predicate offence inquiries, so completion of predicate investigations does not substitute for the specific assessment required under the PMLA; courts must therefore evaluate the seriousness of allegations and the stage and character of the ED probe when considering bail.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
    Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
    The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Judicial oversight of criminal investigations must be cautious to avoid unwarranted de novo probes that disrupt investigative progress.
    The commentary critiques a High Court-ordered de novo investigation into recruitment corruption, treating such measures as extraordinary remedies that should not unsettle substantial prior investigative work. It stresses judicial discipline and adherence to precedent, warns against collusion and political interference in inquiries, recognises expanded locus standi for third parties in complex cases, affirms confidentiality of confession material with limited exceptions, and outlines the Enforcement Directorate's powers in probing and recovering proceeds of money laundering.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
    Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments affirms tribunals can correct proceedings tainted by procedural vitiation or jurisdictional defect.
    The tribunal recognised its inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments distinct from review, holding that recall is available where procedural vitiation, fraud, lack of jurisdiction or failure of natural justice renders a proceeding a nullity. Drawing on the tribunal rules analogue to residual civil-procedure power and higher-court authority, the tribunal treated recall as an incidental order to prevent abuse of process and to correct proceedings affected by jurisdictional defect or gross procedural lapse.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention and release under Section 129: proper tax invoice and e way bill establish owner status and permit release.
    Where goods intercepted in transit show a proper tax invoice and a valid e way bill identifying the consignor/consignee, those documents establish ownership for purposes of Section 129 and direct application of the release provision applicable when the owner comes forward; documentary compliance thus determines which release regime applies where GST registration discrepancies are alleged.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention of goods under GST: enforcement must assess consignee genuineness and documentary compliance before imposing penalties.
    Detention of goods in transit was contested where authorities suspected the consignee's genuineness despite production of a tax invoice and an E way bill; the Court directed that enforcement action distinguish between penalty provisions and alternative statutory mechanisms, require strict procedural fairness, assess documentary evidence and consignee identity, and remit the matter for fresh administrative consideration accordingly.

    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