https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241378 Reassessment initiated after four years was invalid because the notice under section 148 did not expressly allege that escapement of income resulted from the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, as required by the proviso to section 147. Higher depreciation on windmills was allowed because the option under rule 5(1A) was facilitative, and the claim was otherwise made in the return and supported by the books and audit report; failure to separately exercise the option before the due date did not defeat the deduction. The Revenue's challenge was rejected and the relief to the assessee was sustained. en-us Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241378 Reassessment initiated after four years was invalid because the notice under section 148 did not expressly allege that escapement of income resulted from the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts, as required by the proviso to section 147. Higher depreciation on windmills was allowed because the option under rule 5(1A) was facilitative, and the claim was otherwise made in the return and supported by the books and audit report; failure to separately exercise the option before the due date did not defeat the deduction. The Revenue's challenge was rejected and the relief to the assessee was sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=241378