https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39877 Where the same excess depreciation error could be proceeded against under either the 1922 Act or the 1961 Act, choosing the more onerous route under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was held discriminatory because it denied the assessee the shorter limitation period and appellate safeguards available under the 1961 Act. In the absence of any guiding principle for preferring the harsher provision, that selection offended Article 14. The rectification order was therefore quashed and the assessee succeeded. en-us Fri, 07 Jun 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:47:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39877 Where the same excess depreciation error could be proceeded against under either the 1922 Act or the 1961 Act, choosing the more onerous route under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was held discriminatory because it denied the assessee the shorter limitation period and appellate safeguards available under the 1961 Act. In the absence of any guiding principle for preferring the harsher provision, that selection offended Article 14. The rectification order was therefore quashed and the assessee succeeded. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 07 Jun 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39877