https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340236 The High Court affirmed that the Assessee could claim the balance 10% of additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act. The Court held that the original assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial, aligning with the interpretation provided by the Karnataka High Court. The legislative intent behind the provision to promote industrialization was emphasized, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. en-us Mon, 06 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340236 The High Court affirmed that the Assessee could claim the balance 10% of additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year under Section 32(1)(iia) of the Income Tax Act. The Court held that the original assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial, aligning with the interpretation provided by the Karnataka High Court. The legislative intent behind the provision to promote industrialization was emphasized, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 06 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340236