TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals Dismissed for Late Depreciation Claim without Substantial Evidence</h1> The Tribunal dismissed all appeals as the rectification applications for additional depreciation were made after the statutory time limit, and no ... Rectification of mistake u/s 154 - expiry of time limit prescribed u/s 154(7) - claim of additional depreciation made first-time through rectification application after the expiry of time limit prescribed u/s 154(7) - statutory limit of four years from the end of the financial year - whether claim for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act is in modification of original claim made in the ITR or a fresh claim to testify its allowance through rectification application? - HELD THAT:- Since, the Ld. AR failed to bring on record any substantial evidence in support of allowability of belated claim made through belated application of rectification and in the absence of any order of relaxation from the CBDT, we beyond any iota of doubt are inclined to hold the orders of both the tax authorities free from any infirmity, ergo the ground number 3 and its counter parts stand adjudicated against the assessee. Issues:1. Rectification of intimation passed u/s 143(1) after the expiry of statutory time limit u/s 154(7).2. Claim for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) - modification of original claim or fresh claim.Issue 1: Rectification of intimation after statutory time limit:The judgment deals with the question of whether an intimation passed u/s 143(1) can be rectified after the expiry of the statutory time limit prescribed u/s 154(7) of the Income-tax Act. The appeals were against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) arising from rectification orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The matter was heard together due to identical issues in the appeals.Analysis:The appellant sought rectification for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) after the time limit had expired. The appellant argued that the claim was valid due to a mistake of law and sought relaxation from CBDT, which was unsuccessful. The Tribunal held that the rectification applications were time-barred as they were made after the statutory limit, and no substantial evidence was presented to support the belated claim. The orders of the tax authorities were upheld.Issue 2: Claim for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia):The second issue revolved around whether the claim for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) was a modification of the original claim in the Income Tax Return (ITR) or a fresh claim requiring rectification application.Analysis:The appellant made a belated claim for additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) through rectification applications. However, the Tribunal found that the claim was time-barred and lacked substantial evidence. As no relaxation was granted by CBDT, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the tax authorities in rejecting the belated claim for additional depreciation.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all appeals of the appellant as the rectification applications for additional depreciation were made after the statutory time limit, and no substantial evidence was provided to support the belated claim. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to statutory time limits and providing sufficient evidence to support claims in tax matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
