Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 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