https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346272 Claiming 100% depreciation by reclassifying furniture and fixtures as temporary wooden structures was held inconsistent with the block-of-assets regime, because assets in an existing block cannot be reopened and re-rated after amalgamation merely to alter the depreciation rate. The Tribunal noted that the claim was contrary to the scheme of section 32(1) and section 43(6), including the written down value rules, and that the explanation offered lacked a bona fide basis. Mere disclosure in the depreciation schedule did not cure an ex facie inadmissible claim, and such unsupported reclassification attracted the deeming consequence under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars. en-us Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Aug 2017 08:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346272 Claiming 100% depreciation by reclassifying furniture and fixtures as temporary wooden structures was held inconsistent with the block-of-assets regime, because assets in an existing block cannot be reopened and re-rated after amalgamation merely to alter the depreciation rate. The Tribunal noted that the claim was contrary to the scheme of section 32(1) and section 43(6), including the written down value rules, and that the explanation offered lacked a bona fide basis. Mere disclosure in the depreciation schedule did not cure an ex facie inadmissible claim, and such unsupported reclassification attracted the deeming consequence under Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346272