https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346480 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee against the Revenue. The Court held that the ITAT was justified in its decision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that where two views are possible, the AO's view should not be considered erroneous. Additionally, the inclusion of unabsorbed depreciation in the Written Down Value was deemed valid under Section 43(6), and Section 72A was found inapplicable to the case of sound companies' amalgamation. The relevance of the Bombay High Court decision in 187 ITR 1 post-amendment was affirmed. en-us Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:40:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346480 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling in favor of the assessee against the Revenue. The Court held that the ITAT was justified in its decision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that where two views are possible, the AO's view should not be considered erroneous. Additionally, the inclusion of unabsorbed depreciation in the Written Down Value was deemed valid under Section 43(6), and Section 72A was found inapplicable to the case of sound companies' amalgamation. The relevance of the Bombay High Court decision in 187 ITR 1 post-amendment was affirmed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346480