We bought plant in February and used it from March. The Assessing Officer has halved the depreciation. Is the 180 days counted from acquisition or from the date the asset was put to use, and what happens to the other half of the additional depreciation under s.32(1)(iia)?
The proviso is worded on BOTH events, and that is the whole fight. As printed on the most recent departmental edition, it reads: "Provided further that where an asset referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, the deduction under this sub-section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be :". So the restriction applies only where TWO things are true of the same previous year — the asset was acquired by the assessee during that previous year, and it was put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than 180 days in that previous year. The 180-day count is on the period of USE ("is put to use ... for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days"); acquisition during the previous year is a separate, cumulative condition, not the thing counted. An asset acquired in an earlier previous year is outside the proviso even if it is used for less than 180 days in the year in question. The further proviso, printed immediately after, gives back the missing half of the ADDITIONAL depreciation only: where an asset referred to in clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia) is acquired during the previous year and put to use for less than 180 days in that year and the deduction is accordingly restricted to fifty per cent, "then, the deduction for the balance fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for such asset under clause (iia) shall be allowed under this sub-section in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of such asset". The footnote evidence I could read attaches that further proviso to an insertion effective 1 April 2016; the Act number as the departmental page prints it is set out in the editor note and I could not reconcile it.
Decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) on 1998-04-01, reported as Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provisos transcribed from incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-193 (Year: 2026), with the amendment footnotes read on incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-18 (Year: 2007, footnote 30), incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-16 (Year: 2006, footnote 17) and incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-55 (Year: 2016, footnotes 31 to 36 including 33a), and the superseded block-of-assets wording read on incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-11 (Year: 1992); incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-63 (Year: 2024 (No. 2)) read and found to carry no footnotes. It bears on section 32, section 32(1), section 32(1)(i), section 32(1)(ii), section 32(1)(iia), section 32(2), section 43(6), section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Deductions & Disallowances, Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters.
Practitioners argue the wrong condition. The proviso is drafted conjunctively and the halving cannot stand unless the officer establishes BOTH acquisition during the previous year and use for less than 180 days in that previous year; where an asset bought in an earlier year is put to use late, or where an asset is acquired early and used throughout, the proviso does not reach it on its own words. The second point is the counting unit: the proviso speaks of a period of use of less than one hundred and eighty days, not of a half-year, not of a date of installation, and not of the date of the invoice — the taxpayer who can show 180 days or more of use takes the full allowance whatever the acquisition date. The third is that the relief in the further proviso is confined to clause (iia): normal depreciation lost to the halving is lost for that year and comes back only through the written down value, whereas the balance fifty per cent of the additional allowance is expressly given in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of such asset. THE LIBRARY HOLDS NO DECISION ON THE 180-DAY PROVISO ITSELF and one on the balance of the additional allowance — Brakes India (slug brakes-india-balance-additional-depreciation-succeeding-year) — so a reader arguing the succeeding-year point should be sent there; this entry states the statutory position and makes no statement about what that decision holds.
Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The proviso, as printed on the departmental page stamped Year 2026, reads: "Provided further that where an asset referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, the deduction under this sub-section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be :". The proviso printed immediately after it on the same page reads: "Provided also that where an asset referred to in clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, and the deduction under this sub-section in respect of such asset is restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (iia) for that previous year, then, the deduction for the balance fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for such asset under clause (iia) shall be allowed under this sub-section in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of such asset:". The departmental page stamped Year 2007 attaches footnote 30 to the 180-day proviso, reading in full: "Substituted by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1998, w.e.f. 1-4-1998. Prior to its substitution, second proviso, as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, w.e.f. 1-4-1992 and later on amended by the Finance Act, 1995, w.e.f. 1-4-1996, read as under :" — the pre-substitution words it introduces were not rendered on the page. The page stamped Year 2006 carries the same substitution statement at its footnote 17. The page stamped Year 2016 attaches footnote 33a to the further proviso, printing it as "Ins. by Act No. 20 of 2016 (w.e.f. 1-4-2016)", while footnotes 33, 35 and 36 on the same page read "Ins. by Act No. 20 of 2015 (w.e.f. 1-4-2016)". The page stamped Year 2006 carries no proviso about the balance fifty per cent of the additional allowance at all. The page stamped Year 1992 prints the restriction in superseded words, applying it to "any asset falling within a block of assets" acquired by the assessee during the previous year and put to use for less than one hundred and eighty days.
Not a judgment. The statutory position is that where an asset referred to in s.32(1)(i), (ii) or (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia) is acquired by the assessee during the previous year AND is put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, the deduction under s.32(1) in respect of that asset is restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the prescribed percentage; that the two conditions are cumulative and the one hundred and eighty days is a period of use, acquisition during the previous year being a separate condition and not the thing counted; that the restriction is therefore not attracted to an asset acquired in an earlier previous year; and that where additional depreciation under s.32(1)(iia) has been so restricted, the further proviso allows the deduction for the balance fifty per cent in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of that asset. The 180-day proviso is footnoted on the Year 2007 and Year 2006 departmental editions as substituted by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1998 with effect from 1 April 1998, the Year 2007 footnote recording that in its pre-1998 form the second proviso was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991 with effect from 1 April 1992 and amended by the Finance Act, 1995 with effect from 1 April 1996; the further proviso is footnoted on the Year 2016 edition as inserted with effect from 1 April 2016, the Act number as printed on that page being unresolved and set out in the editor note.
Not a judgment; no judicial reasoning is stated for the section.
Provided further that where an asset referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, the deduction under this sub-section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be :
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppThe proviso is worded on BOTH events, and that is the whole fight. As printed on the most recent departmental edition, it reads: "Provided further that where an asset referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, the deduction under this sub-section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be :". So the restriction applies only where TWO things are true of the same previous year — the asset was acquired by the assessee during that previous year, and it was put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than 180 days in that previous year. The 180-day count is on the period of USE ("is put to use ... for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days"); acquisition during the previous year is a separate, cumulative condition, not the thing counted. An asset acquired in an earlier previous year is outside the proviso even if it is used for less than 180 days in the year in question. The further proviso, printed immediately after, gives back the missing half of the ADDITIONAL depreciation only: where an asset referred to in clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia) is acquired during the previous year and put to use for less than 180 days in that year and the deduction is accordingly restricted to fifty per cent, "then, the deduction for the balance fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for such asset under clause (iia) shall be allowed under this sub-section in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of such asset". The footnote evidence I could read attaches that further proviso to an insertion effective 1 April 2016; the Act number as the departmental page prints it is set out in the editor note and I could not reconcile it. This was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) and bears on section 32, section 32(1), section 32(1)(i), section 32(1)(ii), section 32(1)(iia), section 32(2), section 43(6), section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provisos transcribed from incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-193 (Year: 2026), with the amendment footnotes read on incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-18 (Year: 2007, footnote 30), incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-16 (Year: 2006, footnote 17) and incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-55 (Year: 2016, footnotes 31 to 36 including 33a), and the superseded block-of-assets wording read on incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-11 (Year: 1992); incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-63 (Year: 2024 (No. 2)) read and found to carry no footnotes. Practitioners argue the wrong condition. The proviso is drafted conjunctively and the halving cannot stand unless the officer establishes BOTH acquisition during the previous year and use for less than 180 days in that previous year; where an asset bought in an earlier year is put to use late, or where an asset is acquired early and used throughout, the proviso does not reach it on its own words. The second point is the counting unit: the proviso speaks of a period of use of less than one hundred and eighty days, not of a half-year, not of a date of installation, and not of the date of the invoice — the taxpayer who can show 180 days or more of use takes the full allowance whatever the acquisition date. The third is that the relief in the further proviso is confined to clause (iia): normal depreciation lost to the halving is lost for that year and comes back only through the written down value, whereas the balance fifty per cent of the additional allowance is expressly given in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of such asset. THE LIBRARY HOLDS NO DECISION ON THE 180-DAY PROVISO ITSELF and one on the balance of the additional allowance — Brakes India (slug brakes-india-balance-additional-depreciation-succeeding-year) — so a reader arguing the succeeding-year point should be sent there; this entry states the statutory position and makes no statement about what that decision holds. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Put both limbs of the proviso to the officer separately: the asset must have been acquired by the assessee during the previous year AND put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than 180 days in that same previous year. If either is untrue, the restriction does not apply on the words of the proviso.
The proviso, as printed on the departmental page stamped Year 2026, reads: "Provided further that where an asset referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, the deduction under this sub-section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be :". The proviso printed immediately after it on the same page reads: "Provided also that where an asset referred to in clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, and the deduction under this sub-section in respect of such asset is restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (iia) for that previous year, then, the deduction for the balance fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for such asset under clause (iia) shall be allowed under this sub-section in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of such asset:". The departmental page stamped Year 2007 attaches footnote 30 to the 180-day proviso, reading in full: "Substituted by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1998, w.e.f. 1-4-1998. Prior to its substitution, second proviso, as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, w.e.f. 1-4-1992 and later on amended by the Finance Act, 1995, w.e.f. 1-4-1996, read as under :" — the pre-substitution words it introduces were not rendered on the page. The page stamped Year 2006 carries the same substitution statement at its footnote 17. The page stamped Year 2016 attaches footnote 33a to the further proviso, printing it as "Ins. by Act No. 20 of 2016 (w.e.f. 1-4-2016)", while footnotes 33, 35 and 36 on the same page read "Ins. by Act No. 20 of 2015 (w.e.f. 1-4-2016)". The page stamped Year 2006 carries no proviso about the balance fifty per cent of the additional allowance at all. The page stamped Year 1992 prints the restriction in superseded words, applying it to "any asset falling within a block of assets" acquired by the assessee during the previous year and put to use for less than one hundred and eighty days. The matter was decided on 1998-04-01 by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text). On those facts the CBDT Circulars & Instructions held as follows. Not a judgment. The statutory position is that where an asset referred to in s.32(1)(i), (ii) or (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia) is acquired by the assessee during the previous year AND is put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, the deduction under s.32(1) in respect of that asset is restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the prescribed percentage; that the two conditions are cumulative and the one hundred and eighty days is a period of use, acquisition during the previous year being a separate condition and not the thing counted; that the restriction is therefore not attracted to an asset acquired in an earlier previous year; and that where additional depreciation under s.32(1)(iia) has been so restricted, the further proviso allows the deduction for the balance fifty per cent in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of that asset. The 180-day proviso is footnoted on the Year 2007 and Year 2006 departmental editions as substituted by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1998 with effect from 1 April 1998, the Year 2007 footnote recording that in its pre-1998 form the second proviso was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991 with effect from 1 April 1992 and amended by the Finance Act, 1995 with effect from 1 April 1996; the further proviso is footnoted on the Year 2016 edition as inserted with effect from 1 April 2016, the Act number as printed on that page being unresolved and set out in the editor note.
Not a judgment; no judicial reasoning is stated for the section. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Provided further that where an asset referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, the deduction under this sub-section in respect of such asset shall be restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iia), as the case may be :"
It was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions on 1998-04-01 and is reported as Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provisos transcribed from incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-193 (Year: 2026), with the amendment footnotes read on incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-18 (Year: 2007, footnote 30), incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-16 (Year: 2006, footnote 17) and incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-55 (Year: 2016, footnotes 31 to 36 including 33a), and the superseded block-of-assets wording read on incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-11 (Year: 1992); incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-63 (Year: 2024 (No. 2)) read and found to carry no footnotes. Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them. A CBDT circular or instruction binds officers of the department but not the assessee and not the courts. Where a circular helps you, you may hold the department to it. Where it hurts you, it cannot override the Act or a judgment. On section 32, section 32(1), section 32(1)(i), section 32(1)(ii), section 32(1)(iia), section 32(2), section 43(6), section 43(1), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. Not a judgment. The statutory position is that where an asset referred to in s.32(1)(i), (ii) or (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia) is acquired by the assessee during the previous year AND is put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, the deduction under s.32(1) in respect of that asset is restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the prescribed percentage; that the two conditions are cumulative and the one hundred and eighty days is a period of use, acquisition during the previous year being a separate condition and not the thing counted; that the restriction is therefore not attracted to an asset acquired in an earlier previous year; and that where additional depreciation under s.32(1)(iia) has been so restricted, the further proviso allows the deduction for the balance fifty per cent in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of that asset. The 180-day proviso is footnoted on the Year 2007 and Year 2006 departmental editions as substituted by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1998 with effect from 1 April 1998, the Year 2007 footnote recording that in its pre-1998 form the second proviso was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991 with effect from 1 April 1992 and amended by the Finance Act, 1995 with effect from 1 April 1996; the further proviso is footnoted on the Year 2016 edition as inserted with effect from 1 April 2016, the Act number as printed on that page being unresolved and set out in the editor note. It arises in Deductions & Disallowances, Assessment & Scrutiny and How Tax Law Is Read matters, on section 32, section 32(1), section 32(1)(i), section 32(1)(ii), section 32(1)(iia), section 32(2), section 43(6), section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Not applicable — statutory text. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Prove the period of USE, not the date of purchase — the proviso counts the period for which the asset "is put to use", so build the record with commissioning, production, log or dispatch evidence covering 180 days or more. For an asset acquired in an earlier previous year, take the point that the proviso is not attracted at all, whatever the period of use in the year under assessment. Where additional depreciation under s.32(1)(iia) was halved, claim the balance fifty per cent in the immediately succeeding previous year under the further proviso, in respect of that same asset, and read the library's entry at brakes-india-balance-additional-depreciation-succeeding-year before arguing years earlier than the insertion date in the editor note. Do not look for the same relief for NORMAL depreciation: the further proviso is confined to clause (iia) and the first proviso to clause (iia), and the half of the normal allowance forgone in the first year returns only through the written down value.
Still good law. The text as stated is the current text so far as I could establish. Six departmental editions were read, stamped Year 1992, 2006, 2007, 2016, 2024 (No. 2) and 2026, and the progression across them is coherent: the restriction moves from a block-of-assets wording in 1992 to an asset-by-clause wording, the further proviso for the balance of the additional allowance is absent in 2006 and present from the Year 2016 edition onwards, and the Year 2026 edition prints both provisos in the words given here. Year 2026 is the most recent edition I located. What I could not establish is stated rather than guessed: neither the Year 2026 nor the Year 2024 (No. 2) edition renders any footnote, so no part of the current text can be dated from the current page; the Year 2016 edition attaches no footnote to the 180-day proviso, so the date on which the words "or clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia)" entered it is not established; and the Act number printed in footnote 33a for the further proviso could not be reconciled with the other footnotes on the same page, so only its effective date, 1 April 2016, is stated. No judicial treatment was examined on this pass; the library holds no decision on the 180-day proviso and one on the balance of the additional allowance. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
SIX departmental editions of s.32 were read and they do not agree on what the provisos are or in what order they stand, so the reader has to be told which one this entry is built on. The operative text is taken from https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-193, stamped "Year: 2026", the most recent edition I located. THE PROVISO IS THE SECOND PROVISO ON EVERY CURRENT EDITION, and opens with the words "Provided further that". The library, and the practice, call it "the second proviso to s.32(1)", and that is what the departmental editions print. On the Year 2016 edition at https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-55 it is the SECOND printed proviso, following a proviso about motor cars and machinery allowed under s.42. On the Year 2026 edition at https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-193 it is again the SECOND printed proviso: the first proviso there is "Provided that no deduction shall be allowed under this clause in respect of—", and the 180-day restriction follows it as "Provided further that ...". An earlier draft of this entry placed the 180-day proviso first on the Year 2026 edition and opened it with the words "Provided that"; both were wrong and have been corrected against the page on a re-reading. Footnote 30 on the Year 2007 edition calls it the "second proviso" in terms. On the Year 1992 edition at https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-11 it is the FOURTH printed proviso and is worded quite differently — "where any asset falling within a BLOCK OF ASSETS is acquired by the assessee during the previous year" — and that page also prints a proviso restricting a company's depreciation for AY 1991-92 to seventy-five per cent, long gone. A reader who lands on the Year 1992 page and quotes it will quote words that are not the law. I have taken the Year 2026 text and say so. WHAT THE FOOTNOTES GIVE AND WHAT THEY DO NOT. The Year 2026 edition (/w/section-32-193) and the Year 2024 (No. 2) edition (/w/section-32-63) print a "Footnotes" heading with NOTHING under it — neither page can date any part of the section. The footnotes come from older editions. https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-18 (Year: 2007) attaches footnote 30 to the 180-day proviso. The footnote is longer than an earlier draft of this entry recorded, and is transcribed here in full: "Substituted by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1998, w.e.f. 1-4-1998. Prior to its substitution, second proviso, as inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, w.e.f. 1-4-1992 and later on amended by the Finance Act, 1995, w.e.f. 1-4-1996, read as under :" — so the footnote itself calls the provision the SECOND proviso, and records that in its pre-1998 form it was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991 with effect from 1 April 1992 and amended by the Finance Act, 1995 with effect from 1 April 1996. The pre-substitution words the footnote introduces were not rendered on the page and are not reproduced here. https://www.incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-32-16 (Year: 2006) carries the same substitution statement at its footnote 17, opening "Substituted by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1998, w.e.f. 1-4-1998" (I did not read that footnote to its end and do not present it as complete), and carries NO proviso at all about the balance fifty per cent of the additional allowance — that page is proof the further proviso is later than 2006, and is a stale page for anyone asking about it. On the Year 2016 edition the 180-day proviso carries NO footnote, so I could NOT establish when the words "or clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia)" entered the proviso, and this entry makes no statement about that. `decided_on` is 1998-04-01, the effective date in the only footnote I could read for the proviso itself. AN UNRESOLVED FOOTNOTE, stated rather than smoothed over. On the Year 2016 edition the further proviso — the balance fifty per cent of the additional depreciation in the immediately succeeding previous year — carries footnote 33a, which that page prints as: "Ins. by Act No. 20 of 2016 (w.e.f. 1-4-2016)." On the SAME page, footnotes 33, 35 and 36 each read "Ins. by Act No. 20 of 2015 (w.e.f. 1-4-2016)", and footnote 34 refers to "Act No. 28 of 2016". "Act No. 20 of 2016" therefore sits oddly between an Act No. 20 of 2015 and an Act No. 28 of 2016 on the same page, and I could not tell from any government source whether the page has a typographical error in the YEAR of the Act or in its NUMBER. I fetched the page twice and it returned the same string both times, so the anomaly is on the page and not in the reading. What the two candidate readings agree on, and what this entry therefore states, is the EFFECTIVE DATE: 1 April 2016. I have NOT verified the short title of Act No. 20 of 2015 or of any Act No. 20 of 2016 from a government source and name neither. COPYRIGHT NOTE: the departmental /w/ pages carry the line "© Copyright. Taxmann Publications Pvt. Ltd." and a number of their footnotes are editorial cross-references to that publisher's own titles. I have transcribed only footnotes stating a legislative fact and have reproduced none of the editorial cross-references. TRANSCRIPTION METHOD: the fetch tool on these pages refuses long verbatim runs, so both provisos were demanded as ordered lists of consecutive fragments of not more than 100 characters and reassembled; the reassembled text is what appears in `facts` and `key_quote`. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Not a judgment. The statutory position is that where an asset referred to in s.32(1)(i), (ii) or (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia) is acquired by the assessee during the previous year AND is put to use for the purposes of business or profession for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, the deduction under s.32(1) in respect of that asset is restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the prescribed percentage; that the two conditions are cumulative and the one hundred and eighty days is a period of use, acquisition during the previous year being a separate condition and not the thing counted; that the restriction is therefore not attracted to an asset acquired in an earlier previous year; and that where additional depreciation under s.32(1)(iia) has been so restricted, the further proviso allows the deduction for the balance fifty per cent in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of that asset. The 180-day proviso is footnoted on the Year 2007 and Year 2006 departmental editions as substituted by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1998 with effect from 1 April 1998, the Year 2007 footnote recording that in its pre-1998 form the second proviso was inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991 with effect from 1 April 1992 and amended by the Finance Act, 1995 with effect from 1 April 1996; the further proviso is footnoted on the Year 2016 edition as inserted with effect from 1 April 2016, the Act number as printed on that page being unresolved and set out in the editor note.
TaxSphere, “Statutory position — the second proviso to s.32(1): where an asset is acquired during the previous year AND put to use for less than 180 days in that year, depreciation is restricted to fifty per cent — the exact words, what the 180 days is counted on, and the further proviso giving the balance of the additional allowance in the succeeding year”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/statutory-position-32-1-second-proviso-180-days-and-the-half-year-depreciation-restriction/ (validity last checked 2026-09-17)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The Assessing Officer has disallowed depreciation on goodwill that arose when a company amalgamated into mine. Which years can I still claim it for?
My machine went into use after 30 September, so I got only half the additional depreciation. The assessment year is before AY 2016-17. Can I claim the balance half in the following year?
We filed the original return under MAT claiming MAT credit, then filed a revised return within the due date opting for s.115BAA. The Assessing Officer says that is a prohibited withdrawal of the option. Is it, and what happens to the MAT credit and our brought-forward losses?
The Assessing Officer has disallowed my power company's section 32AC investment allowance on the ground that generating electricity is not the manufacture or production of an article or thing, and that the Finance Act 2013 memorandum did not mention power companies. Is there anything on the point?
