<?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>Computer software depreciation rate dispute: reassessment reopening u/s147 held time-barred; 60% &quot;computers&quot; depreciation allowed.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95427</link>
    <description>Reassessment for disallowing higher depreciation on computer software was held time-barred because the original scrutiny assessment was based on a full and true disclosure, and the Revenue relied only on the same return, financials, and depreciation statement without any subsequent tangible material; hence the proviso to s.147 could not extend limitation and reopening amounted to impermissible review. Consequently, limitation was reckoned from the original assessment date, as the later s.143(3) r/w s.263 order dealt only with s.10A/10B computation and did not merge on the depreciation issue, rendering the reopening without jurisdiction. On merits, computer software was eligible for 60% depreciation under the then-existing &quot;computers&quot; entry, as no separate software entry existed pre-AY 2003-04, so the higher rate was allowable. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=874088" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Computer software depreciation rate dispute: reassessment reopening u/s147 held time-barred; 60% &quot;computers&quot; depreciation allowed.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95427</link>
      <description>Reassessment for disallowing higher depreciation on computer software was held time-barred because the original scrutiny assessment was based on a full and true disclosure, and the Revenue relied only on the same return, financials, and depreciation statement without any subsequent tangible material; hence the proviso to s.147 could not extend limitation and reopening amounted to impermissible review. Consequently, limitation was reckoned from the original assessment date, as the later s.143(3) r/w s.263 order dealt only with s.10A/10B computation and did not merge on the depreciation issue, rendering the reopening without jurisdiction. On merits, computer software was eligible for 60% depreciation under the then-existing &quot;computers&quot; entry, as no separate software entry existed pre-AY 2003-04, so the higher rate was allowable. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95427</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>