Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax