Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
HC held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue's interests under Section 263. The court found no evidence that the AO examined the depreciation claim on leasehold improvements during assessment proceedings. The CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal's concurrent findings were justified, as the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry or address the 100% depreciation claim for the assessment year. The order was consequently decided against the assessee, affirming procedural deficiencies in the original assessment.
HC held that the AO's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue's interests under Section 263. The court found no evidence that the AO examined the depreciation claim on leasehold improvements during assessment proceedings. The CIT (Appeals) and Tribunal's concurrent findings were justified, as the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry or address the 100% depreciation claim for the assessment year. The order was consequently decided against the assessee, affirming procedural deficiencies in the original assessment.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
