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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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