Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 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