https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339525 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, ruling that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was unjustified. The Assessing Officer had properly examined the claim of depreciation on the "Infrastructure Usage Facility," and the consistent allowance of depreciation in previous years supported the appellant's position. The Tribunal held that the revision proceedings under Section 263 were unnecessary, and the original assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interests. en-us Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Feb 2017 18:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339525 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, ruling that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was unjustified. The Assessing Officer had properly examined the claim of depreciation on the "Infrastructure Usage Facility," and the consistent allowance of depreciation in previous years supported the appellant's position. The Tribunal held that the revision proceedings under Section 263 were unnecessary, and the original assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue's interests. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339525