https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333860 The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to apply his mind or provide reasons in the assessment order, leading to the Commissioner of Income Tax's (CIT) valid exercise of power under Section 263. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower authority's decision. The higher rate of depreciation claimed on a vehicle mounted with film equipment was denied, emphasizing the need for the AO to thoroughly consider each assessment year independently and provide reasoned orders. The CIT's directive for a de novo assessment was upheld due to the AO's lack of reasoning in the initial assessment. en-us Thu, 01 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Oct 2016 22:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333860 The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to apply his mind or provide reasons in the assessment order, leading to the Commissioner of Income Tax's (CIT) valid exercise of power under Section 263. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower authority's decision. The higher rate of depreciation claimed on a vehicle mounted with film equipment was denied, emphasizing the need for the AO to thoroughly consider each assessment year independently and provide reasoned orders. The CIT's directive for a de novo assessment was upheld due to the AO's lack of reasoning in the initial assessment. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 01 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333860