https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335761 The court upheld the orders granting additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, determining that the respondent's engagement in both extraction and processing of iron ore activities qualified for the claim. The court found that the appellant's challenge lacked merit as the respondent's operations aligned with the eligibility criteria established in relevant case law. Citing precedent, the court emphasized that when the assessing officer's decision was based on a reasonable interpretation of the law, the order could not be considered erroneous. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, with the court ruling no substantial legal questions arose under the Income Tax Act provisions. en-us Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Dec 2016 10:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335761 The court upheld the orders granting additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act, determining that the respondent's engagement in both extraction and processing of iron ore activities qualified for the claim. The court found that the appellant's challenge lacked merit as the respondent's operations aligned with the eligibility criteria established in relevant case law. Citing precedent, the court emphasized that when the assessing officer's decision was based on a reasonable interpretation of the law, the order could not be considered erroneous. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, with the court ruling no substantial legal questions arose under the Income Tax Act provisions. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335761