<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (12) TMI 853 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783313</link>
    <description>ITAT Pune upheld the PCIT&#039;s revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263, holding the assessment order for AY 2020-21 to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue due to the AO&#039;s failure to examine the assessee&#039;s claim of depreciation on goodwill arising on amalgamation. Since the goodwill had been fully impaired in the books and shown at nil, a detailed inquiry into the allowability of depreciation was mandatory, which the AO omitted. The PCIT&#039;s direction to the AO to verify the depreciation claim was affirmed, while observations relating to earlier years were held to be irrelevant for the set-aside assessment. The assessee&#039;s grounds, including on DIN validity, were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Dec 2025 08:28:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=871230" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 853 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783313</link>
      <description>ITAT Pune upheld the PCIT&#039;s revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263, holding the assessment order for AY 2020-21 to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue due to the AO&#039;s failure to examine the assessee&#039;s claim of depreciation on goodwill arising on amalgamation. Since the goodwill had been fully impaired in the books and shown at nil, a detailed inquiry into the allowability of depreciation was mandatory, which the AO omitted. The PCIT&#039;s direction to the AO to verify the depreciation claim was affirmed, while observations relating to earlier years were held to be irrelevant for the set-aside assessment. The assessee&#039;s grounds, including on DIN validity, were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783313</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>