Appellant allowed to claim Notification No.20/2007-CE refunds despite inadvertent filing under Notification No.56/2003-CE as revenue did not dispute e...
ITAT held that the PCIT's revision u/s. 263 was misplaced and set aside: the AO had made specific enquiries into depreciation claimed u/s. 32 on immovable properties partly let out and had examined the assessee's detailed replies, taking a legally permissible view accepting depreciation for the period properties were employed in business while rental income was offered for the let-out period. Tribunal found there was neither lack nor inadequacy of inquiry by the AO, thus jurisdiction u/s. 263 could not be invoked. On merits the assessee satisfactorily demonstrated entitlement to depreciation for business use periods; the appeal was allowed and the s. 263 action quashed.
ITAT held that the PCIT's revision u/s. 263 was misplaced and set aside: the AO had made specific enquiries into depreciation claimed u/s. 32 on immovable properties partly let out and had examined the assessee's detailed replies, taking a legally permissible view accepting depreciation for the period properties were employed in business while rental income was offered for the let-out period. Tribunal found there was neither lack nor inadequacy of inquiry by the AO, thus jurisdiction u/s. 263 could not be invoked. On merits the assessee satisfactorily demonstrated entitlement to depreciation for business use periods; the appeal was allowed and the s. 263 action quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
