https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766832 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal against PCIT's revision order under Section 263. PCIT held that AO failed to examine depreciation computation where brought forward additional depreciation from AY 2017-18 should have been reduced from opening WDV before computing current year depreciation for AY 2018-19. ITAT ruled PCIT's method incorrect as Section 32(1)(ii) requires depreciation on WDV computed per Section 43(6)(c) without further adjustments. CBDT's income tax return utility and Tax Audit Report Clause 18 support assessee's method. PCIT's approach would actually result in higher depreciation in subsequent years, making the original order not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. en-us Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Mar 2025 07:49:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766832 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal against PCIT's revision order under Section 263. PCIT held that AO failed to examine depreciation computation where brought forward additional depreciation from AY 2017-18 should have been reduced from opening WDV before computing current year depreciation for AY 2018-19. ITAT ruled PCIT's method incorrect as Section 32(1)(ii) requires depreciation on WDV computed per Section 43(6)(c) without further adjustments. CBDT's income tax return utility and Tax Audit Report Clause 18 support assessee's method. PCIT's approach would actually result in higher depreciation in subsequent years, making the original order not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766832