https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16857 The High Court ruled against the assessee on questions 1 to 5, stating the revised return was invalid and the Income-tax Officer could consider particulars from the original return for depreciation. However, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on questions 6 to 8, allowing depreciation on capitalized expenditure, roads within the factory, and granting 15% depreciation on laboratory equipment. The court did not award costs due to the divided success. en-us Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:09:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16857 The High Court ruled against the assessee on questions 1 to 5, stating the revised return was invalid and the Income-tax Officer could consider particulars from the original return for depreciation. However, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee on questions 6 to 8, allowing depreciation on capitalized expenditure, roads within the factory, and granting 15% depreciation on laboratory equipment. The court did not award costs due to the divided success. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16857