https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775608 The ITAT Cochin held that the revision under section 263 was not justified regarding the allowance of depreciation on the "right to collect toll" as an intangible asset, given the divergent judicial opinions on its classification. The tribunal found no error in the original assessment order. Additionally, rental income was correctly treated as business income due to its direct connection with the appellant's BOT project activities, consistent with Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the PCIT's exercise of revisionary powers was set aside, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. en-us Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Jul 2025 08:27:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775608 The ITAT Cochin held that the revision under section 263 was not justified regarding the allowance of depreciation on the "right to collect toll" as an intangible asset, given the divergent judicial opinions on its classification. The tribunal found no error in the original assessment order. Additionally, rental income was correctly treated as business income due to its direct connection with the appellant's BOT project activities, consistent with Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the PCIT's exercise of revisionary powers was set aside, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 15 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775608