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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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