https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13511 The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee on all four main issues raised. The Court held that the expenditure for pot relining was revenue in nature, depreciation on buildings without legal ownership was correctly allowed, the issue of depreciation on unauthorizedly occupied properties was not addressed due to lack of information, and the order passed by the Commissioner under section 154 was upheld despite a technical error in service. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's arguments and upheld the decisions in favor of the assessee. en-us Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 May 2009 12:39:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13511 The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee on all four main issues raised. The Court held that the expenditure for pot relining was revenue in nature, depreciation on buildings without legal ownership was correctly allowed, the issue of depreciation on unauthorizedly occupied properties was not addressed due to lack of information, and the order passed by the Commissioner under section 154 was upheld despite a technical error in service. The Court found no merit in the Revenue's arguments and upheld the decisions in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13511