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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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 229 "Depreciation and gains relating to tonnage tax assets." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      6 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 229 Depreciation and gains relating to tonnage tax assets.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 229 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) prescribes the manner of computing depreciation and treatment of capital gains for assets under the tonnage tax scheme applicable to shipping companies. It defines procedures for splitting written down value (WDV) between qualifying ships and non-qualifying ships, treatment where assets move between businesses, and treatment of capital gains on transfers. The provision affects taxpayers in the shipping industry and the tax department; effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 229 sits within the Part addressing special provisions relating to income of shipping companies and operates in conjunction with section 230(1)(d) (referred to for depreciation computation). The clause governs (a) computation of depreciation for the first tax year of the tonnage tax scheme, (b) allocation of WDV between qualifying and non-qualifying ships, (c) creation of separate blocks of qualifying assets, (d) adjustment when assets change use between tonnage tax business and other business, (e) allocation of depreciation for part-year use, and (f) treatment of capital gains on transfer of qualifying assets with reference to sections 67 and 74 and sections 67-81 for computation. Definitions provided in the clause: "book written down value" means written down value as per books of accounts; "written down value" means written down value as calculated for purposes of income-tax. The clause does not otherwise define "tonnage tax business," "qualifying ship," or other terms within this text. Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      • Clause 229(1) mandates that for computing depreciation u/s 230(1)(d), the first-year depreciation for the tonnage tax scheme shall be computed on the WDV of qualifying ships determined under sub-section (2).
      • Clause 229(2) prescribes an apportionment formula: the WDV (A) of the existing block of assets (ships) as on the last day of the immediately preceding tax year is to be divided between qualifying assets (D) and other assets (E) in proportion to the book WDV of qualifying assets (B) and other assets (C) as on the last day of the preceding tax year, via D = A x B / (B+C) and E = A x C / (B+C).
      • Clause 229(3) states that the block of qualifying assets as determined under sub-section (2) shall constitute a separate block of assets for the purposes of the Part (i.e., for depreciation rules).
      • Clause 229(4) addresses movements: (a) where a qualifying asset begins to be used for non-tonnage tax business, an appropriate portion of WDV is transferred from the qualifying block to the other block by A = B x C / D (with variables defined in the sub-clause); (b) conversely, where an other asset begins to be used for the tonnage tax business, an apportioned value is moved from the other block to the qualifying block by E = F x G / I (variables defined).
      • Clause 229(5) requires allocation of depreciation for assets changing use during a tax year in proportion to days of use in each business.
      • Clause 229(6) declares that depreciation on the newly created blocks shall be allowed as if the WDV referred in sub-section (2) had been brought forward from the preceding tax year.
      • Clause 229(7) supplies two definitions: "book written down value" and "written down value" (as described above).
      • Clause 229(8)-(9) provide that profits/gains on transfer of qualifying assets are chargeable u/ss 67 and 74 and calculated u/ss 67-81; for that purpose section 74 shall operate as if "written down value of the block of assets" were replaced by "written down value of the block of qualifying assets." Clause 229(10) clarifies "written down value of the block of qualifying assets" is as computed under sub-section (2).

      Interpretation

      The clause adopts an allocation-by-proportion approach: the book WDV split (B and C) as at the last day of the preceding year governs apportionment of the existing fiscal WDV (A) to qualifying and other blocks. Legislative purpose, as discernible from the text, is to align tax depreciation in the first tonnage tax year with accounting distinctions between qualifying and other ships, while preserving continuity for tax WDV by deeming the apportioned WDV had been brought forward. The declared substitution for section 74 ensures capital gains computations reflect the qualifying block's WDV rather than the overall block. The clause indicates an intent to prevent mismatch between book and tax positions when ships move between business uses by prescribing proportional transfers and day-count allocation. No extrinsic legislative history or policy rationale beyond these textual mechanisms is provided. Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No express provisos, exemptions, thresholds, or exceptions are included beyond the mechanics for allocation and transfer on change of use, and the day-pro-rata depreciation allocation for part-year use. Not stated in the document: any caps, transitional time limits beyond "first tax year," or special treatment for leased vessels, second-hand ships, or cross-border issues.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (illustrative application consistent with the text): A block of ships has book WDV B = 60 and C = 40 as at preceding year-end; tax WDV A = 100. Then D = 100 x 60/(60+40) = 60 and E = 100 x 40/(60+40) = 40; qualifying and other blocks are created with those tax WDVs.
      • Example 2 (change of use): Within the tax year, a qualifying ship with book WDV C (as described in sub-clause) begins non-tonnage use; the appropriate portion to move to other block is calculated as A = B x C / D (per variables defined in the clause) and depreciation for that tax year on the asset is allocated by days used for each business.
      • Example 3 (capital gains): On disposal of a qualifying asset, capital gains are taxed u/ss 67 and 74, with section 74 applied as if reference were to the "written down value of the block of qualifying assets" computed under sub-section (2).

      Interplay

      The clause expressly interacts with section 230(1)(d) for depreciation computation, and with sections 67 and 74 and sections 67-81 for capital gains charge and computation. No mention is made of specific Rules, Notifications, or Circulars that further elucidate implementation. Not stated in the document: any cross-references to definitions elsewhere in the Act (e.g., definition of "tonnage tax scheme" or "qualifying ship") or to accounting standards.

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Scope language: The Act (Document 1) expressly refers to "ships or inland vessels" in sub-section (2); the Bill (Document 2) refers only to "ships" (with "inland vessels" absent).
        • Practical impact: Inclusion of inland vessels in the enacted text broadens coverage to inland shipping operators who would not clearly have been covered under the Bill's language.
      • Temporal reference for A in sub-section (2): The Bill (Document 2) defines A as "the written down value of the existing block of assets, being ships as on the last day of the immediately preceding tax year." The Act (Document 1) describes A as "the written down value of the existing block of assets, being ships or inland vessel, as the case may be, as on the first day of the tax year."
        • Practical impact: The change of reference date from "last day of the immediately preceding tax year" to "first day of the tax year" (and harmonising the asset description with inland vessels) alters the base value used in allocation; administratively this can affect numeric allocation of WDV between qualifying and other blocks and therefore depreciation in the first tonnage-tax year.
      • Definitions: The Bill (Document 2) includes two defined terms in sub-section (7): (a) "book written down value" and (b) "written down value" (explicitly defined as written down value as calculated for purposes of income-tax). The Act (Document 1) contains only a definition for "book written down value" in sub-section (7).
        • Practical impact: Omission of the express statutory definition of "written down value" in the enacted section could leave a textual lacuna; however, administrative practice or other statutory definitions elsewhere may supply that meaning. Absent an express definition here, taxpayers and revenue may engage different interpretive approaches to the term when applying the allocation formula.
      • Wording concerning brought-forward written down value: The Bill (Document 2) uses clarifying language - "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that..." - in sub-section (6). The Act (Document 1) frames the same rule without the "removal of doubts" preamble.
        • Practical impact: The substantive effect appears the same (treating the created blocks as if WDV were brought forward), but the Bill's declaratory phrase emphasises intent to remove ambiguity; its omission from the Act is stylistic and arguably does not change legal effect.
      • Formula presentation and labelling: Both texts supply proportionate allocation formulas for initial division and for movements between qualifying and other assets. The Act's printed formulas in the supplied extraction show slight formatting differences and consistent broader reference to "ships or inland vessels."
        • Practical impact: No substantive change to mathematical approach is evident, but the change in A's reference date (noted above) may change numerical results.
      • Miscellaneous drafting differences: Minor variances in phrasing (e.g., passive/active forms) and punctuation occur.
        • Practical impact: Generally drafting-level, except where temporal/reference changes noted above which can influence computation and coverage.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must maintain clear book WDV schedules at the immediately preceding year-end to apply the proportional split; errors in computing B and C or in locating the correct A date will affect first-year depreciation and subsequent tax positions. The clause creates risk around valuation timing and the derivation of "written down value" versus "book written down value" (both defined in the clause), so consistency between accounting records and tax computations is essential.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The text implicitly requires contemporaneous books of account reflecting book WDV by asset, schedules evidencing the last day of preceding tax year book WDV, documentation of dates assets change business use, and day-count records for apportionment of depreciation per sub-section (5). For capital gains, records supporting the substituted WDV of the qualifying block u/s 74 application are necessary.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 229 prescribes proportional allocation of tax WDV between qualifying and other ships using book WDV proportions as at preceding year-end and creates separate qualifying blocks for depreciation.
      • Assets changing use require proportional transfer of WDV between blocks using the clause's formulas and day-pro-rata depreciation allocation for the year of change.
      • Capital gains on disposals of qualifying assets are charged u/ss 67 and 74, with section 74 applied as if references were to WDV of the qualifying block computed under sub-section (2).
      • The clause explicitly defines "book written down value" and "written down value" for purposes of computation.
      • Taxpayers must retain precise asset-level book WDV records and date records to apply the formulas and to justify tax computations on audit.

      Full Text:

      Section 229 Depreciation and gains relating to tonnage tax assets.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax