Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

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

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 41 "Written down value of depreciable asset" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      26 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 41 Written down value of depreciable asset.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Document: Clause 41 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), titled "Written down value of depreciable asset." It sets out how written down value (WDV) is to be computed for assets acquired in and before the tax year and for blocks of assets, and addresses special transfers (holding/subsidiary, amalgamation, demerger, conversion to LLP, corporatisation) and consequences of revaluation and agricultural income. It matters to taxpayers, transferor/transferee companies, LLPs, demerged/resulting companies, and tax administrators. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 41 (Bill) concerns computation of WDV for purposes of computing income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". The clause supplies a Table of circumstances and the corresponding WDV treatment. Definitions and explanations included in the clause: "Actual cost", "written down value", the block computation formula [(A-D)+B-C]-E with constituent parameters A, B, C, D, E defined in the note; special provisions for intra-group transfers, amalgamation, demerger, conversion to LLP, corporatisation, carried-forward depreciation (section 33(11)), revaluation adjustments where assessee was not required to compute total income for earlier years, treatment where income is partly agricultural, and reference to meaning of "sold" as in section 38(6)(a).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: Clause 41 prescribes the method of computing WDV for three primary circumstances: (1) asset acquired in the tax year - WDV equals actual cost to the assessee; (2) asset acquired before the tax year - WDV equals actual cost less depreciation actually allowed; (3) block of assets - WDV computed by the formula [(A-D)+B-C]-E, with defined parameters.

      The clause extends the WDV concept to specified transfers: holding/subsidiary transfers (section 70(1)(c)/(d)), amalgamation to an Indian company, demerger (demerged to resulting company), conversion of private/unlisted public company to LLP (section 70(1)(ze)), corporatisation of recognised stock exchange (SEBI-approved), and succession in business u/s 313. It also deems depreciation carried forward u/s 33(11) to be "depreciation actually allowed". It addresses adjustments when assessee was not required to compute total income in earlier years (revaluation and book depreciation are accounted for), and a rule where income is partly agricultural: compute depreciation as if entire income arose from business and deem that depreciation to be 'actually allowed'.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated: The clause aims to provide clear, rule-based computation methods for WDV to ensure uniformity across ordinary acquisitions, block computations and corporate restructurings. By providing explicit formulas and mapping treatments for transfers (holding/subsidiary, amalgamation, demerger, LLP conversion, corporatisation), the provision intends to preserve continuity of WDV in specified corporate events and to prevent artificial creation or erosion of depreciation pools. The deeming of carried-forward depreciation as "actually allowed" indicates a policy to give effect to prior accounting of depreciation even if tax was not computed earlier. The agricultural/business rule indicates intent to treat assets used partly for agriculture consistently for WDV computation by treating the asset as if wholly used in business for this purpose.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions spelled out in the clause: the block formula's parameters impose caps - C shall not exceed (A-D)+B; E shall not exceed [(A-D)+B-C]. Transfers to transferee companies or LLPs are conditional on satisfaction of the relevant subsections of section 70 (e.g., section 70(1)(c)/(d)/(ze)). The clause does not provide further procedural conditions or forms; it assumes satisfaction of statutory conditions in those sections. Any additional provisos or interpretive exceptions: Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (asset acquired in tax year): Company purchases a machine for actual cost 1,00,000 in the tax year. WDV for that tax year = 1,00,000 (actual cost to the assessee).

      • Example 2 (asset acquired before tax year): Assessee acquired equipment earlier for 2,00,000 and depreciation actually allowed to date totals 50,000. WDV = 2,00,000 - 50,000 = 1,50,000.

      • Example 3 (block of assets): Beginning WDV (A) = 5,00,000; depreciation actually allowed in preceding year (D) = 50,000; assets added during year (B) = 1,00,000; assets sold with scrap (C) = 20,000 (not exceeding (A-D)+B); slump-sale reduction (E) computed as per note and capped at [(A-D)+B-C]. Resulting WDV = [(5,00,000 - 50,000) + 1,00,000 - 20,000] - E = [5,30,000] - E (compute E as provided).

      Interplay

      Interaction with other provisions: Clause 41 explicitly references section 70 (transfer conditions for holding/subsidiary, LLC conversion), section 33(11) (carried-forward depreciation), section 38(6)(a) (definition of "sold"), and section 313 (succession in business). No other Rules/Notifications/Circulars are mentioned in the clause. How the clause should be applied in conjunction with section 39 (cost of acquisition) is not directly discussed in this Bill text other than the statement that WDV in transferee is the same as in transferor at the beginning of the tax year; any express "irrespective of section 39" qualification is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 41 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 41 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      • Structural and numbering differences:

      Act: The Act text places the computation of written down value (WDV) rules in a single numbered subsection with multiple subparts; the Bill presents the same material in a tabular format (column C) and numbered paragraphs.

      Practical impact: Largely stylistic; potential differences only in interpretive emphasis (table vs prose) but no substantive change evident in most parallel provisions.

      • Definition and treatment of "E" in the block formula (slump sale):

        Bill (Old Version): E is "the actual cost of the asset falling within that block as reduced by depreciation allowable from the tax year 1988-1989 onwards, as if the asset was the only asset in the relevant block of assets, which shall not exceed [(A-D)+B-C]."

        Act: E is the actual cost reduced by (i) depreciation actually allowed in respect of tax year commencing on 1st April, 1986 or any earlier tax year; and (ii) depreciation allowable for tax year commencing on or after 1st April, 1987 under this Act or under the Income-tax Act, 1961, as if such asset was the only asset in the relevant block.

        Practical impact: The Act's formulation separates depreciation already actually allowed before 1 April 1986 and depreciation allowable from 1 April 1987 onwards, whereas the Bill references depreciation allowable from 1988-89 onwards. This difference affects which historical years' depreciation are accounted for in reducing the slump-sale asset cost (E). Tax computation for slump sales could change depending on which vintage of depreciation is brought into account; taxpayers and practitioners must reconcile which years are eligible under each text.

      • Transfers between holding and subsidiary companies and treatment of actual cost / WDV:

        Bill: For transfers (holding to subsidiary and vice versa, where section 70(1)(c)/(d) satisfied) and amalgamation to Indian company, the WDV in the hands of transferee is the same as WDV in hands of transferor "at the beginning of the tax year in which such transfer took place."

        Act: Provides that the actual cost of the block in the hands of transferee shall be the same as the WDV of the block in the hands of transferor in the immediately preceding tax year as reduced by depreciation actually allowed in respect of that block in that tax year; and adds "irrespective of anything contained in section 39".

        Practical impact: The Act explicitly addresses "actual cost" treatment and reduction by depreciation actually allowed in the immediately preceding year and adds an "irrespective of section 39" clause; the Bill focuses on equality of WDV at the beginning of the tax year. The Act's language is more prescriptive about computation and interacts with section 39; the Bill's phrasing may be read as simpler but potentially ambiguous about timing (beginning of tax year vs immediately preceding tax year). This can lead to different WDV bases for transferee taxpayers and affect depreciation computations post-transfer.

      • Placement of the provision deeming carried-forward depreciation to be "actually allowed":

        Bill: This appears as subsection (2) - "Any allowance in respect of any depreciation carried forward u/s 33(11) shall be deemed to be the depreciation actually allowed."

        Act: The same rule appears as subsection (8).

        Practical impact: Substance is the same; difference is only numbering and placement. No material impact.

      • Consequential numbering and ordering of other ancillary provisions (revaluation adjustments, agriculture/business split, demerger rules, corporatisation, LLP conversion):

        Both texts contain these topics but with minor ordering and phrasing differences (e.g., Bill places the revaluation/depreciation adjustments as subsection (3); Act uses (9) and (10) for related matters).

        Practical impact: No substantive divergence apparent except where the Act includes explicit cross-reference language ("irrespective of anything contained in section 39") and the slump-sale depreciation-year specification noted above.

      • Definition of "sold": Both texts refer to section 38(6)(a) for the meaning of "sold", but Bill places it as sub-section (5) and Act as sub-section (11).

        Practical impact: No substantive change.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must maintain clear records of actual cost, depreciation actually allowed, and book revaluation adjustments when earlier years did not require income computation. Corporate restructurings (holding/subsidiary transfers, amalgamations, demergers, conversions to LLP, corporatisation) require precise mapping of WDV at the specified point in time (beginning of tax year or immediately before demerger/transfer as the clause prescribes).
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Retain originals and schedules showing actual cost, year-wise depreciation allowed, details of assets added and disposed within blocks (including scrap values and moneys payable), and computations of E for slump sales. Maintain records demonstrating satisfaction of conditions of section 70(1)(c)/(d)/(ze) where relevant. Keep evidence of revaluation adjustments and book depreciation where earlier tax computations were not required.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 41 prescribes WDV computation for assets acquired in the year, before the year, and for blocks via a clear formula [(A-D)+B-C]-E.
      • Special transfer events (holding/subsidiary transfers, amalgamation, demerger, LLP conversion, corporatisation) carryforward or replicate WDV between transferor and transferee subject to conditions referenced in other sections.
      • Carried-forward depreciation u/s 33(11) is deemed to be depreciation actually allowed for WDV purposes.
      • Where earlier years did not require income computation, revaluation and book depreciation adjustments are specifically addressed.
      • For assets used partly for agriculture, depreciation for WDV is to be computed as if the entire income were from business; that amount is deemed to be depreciation actually allowed.
      • The clause cross-references section 38(6)(a), section 70, section 33(11), and section 313; interplay with section 39 and certain historical-year depreciation treatments are not specified in detail in this document.

      Full Text:

      Section 41 Written down value of depreciable asset.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax