https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24427 HC held that depreciation under section 32(1)(ii), read with section 34(1), is a matter of choice for the assessee and not mandatory. The assessee may elect to claim or not to claim depreciation, and if it chooses not to, the Income-tax Officer lacks jurisdiction to thrust the allowance upon it. The departmental duty under the Board's circular is limited to advising taxpayers of available reliefs, not unilaterally granting them. HC further held that an assessee can change its position before completion of assessment; a revised return and accompanying letter withdrawing a depreciation claim must be respected, and the officer cannot rely on the original return to allow depreciation. en-us Thu, 08 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 16:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24427 HC held that depreciation under section 32(1)(ii), read with section 34(1), is a matter of choice for the assessee and not mandatory. The assessee may elect to claim or not to claim depreciation, and if it chooses not to, the Income-tax Officer lacks jurisdiction to thrust the allowance upon it. The departmental duty under the Board's circular is limited to advising taxpayers of available reliefs, not unilaterally granting them. HC further held that an assessee can change its position before completion of assessment; a revised return and accompanying letter withdrawing a depreciation claim must be respected, and the officer cannot rely on the original return to allow depreciation. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 08 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24427