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
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
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    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