https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265039 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the Assessee's claim for higher depreciation at 80% on energy-saving devices. The Tribunal found that the Assessee had properly exercised the option under the second proviso to Rule 5(1A) in the return of income, as per statutory provisions. The AO's attempt to restrict the claim was deemed unjustified, and the department's appeal was dismissed. The decision was rendered on 4th September 2015. en-us Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Oct 2015 05:59:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265039 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, allowing the Assessee's claim for higher depreciation at 80% on energy-saving devices. The Tribunal found that the Assessee had properly exercised the option under the second proviso to Rule 5(1A) in the return of income, as per statutory provisions. The AO's attempt to restrict the claim was deemed unjustified, and the department's appeal was dismissed. The decision was rendered on 4th September 2015. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265039