https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259840 The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to consider Rs. 35 lakh as the actual cost of the equipment for depreciation purposes, rejecting both the assessee's declared Rs. 63.22 lakh and the AO's estimated Rs. 20 lakh. The Tribunal upheld the AO's application of Explanation 3 to Section 43(1), finding that the AO had satisfactorily established that the asset transfer was aimed at reducing tax liability. en-us Tue, 05 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 May 2015 22:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259840 The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to consider Rs. 35 lakh as the actual cost of the equipment for depreciation purposes, rejecting both the assessee's declared Rs. 63.22 lakh and the AO's estimated Rs. 20 lakh. The Tribunal upheld the AO's application of Explanation 3 to Section 43(1), finding that the AO had satisfactorily established that the asset transfer was aimed at reducing tax liability. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259840