https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793103 Rectification under section 154 and the depreciation-related natural justice challenge were rejected because the authorities gave detailed reasons and the matter was within rectification scope. The depreciation disallowance itself was remanded for fresh factual verification, as the claim of retrospective capitalisation of engineering fees and revision of written down value required examination at assessment stage. The deletion of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was upheld in line with binding precedent, and the section 80IA(8) computation was sustained on the basis that market value means the open-market price payable by an industrial consumer. Consequential interest and later-year depreciation grounds did not warrant interference. en-us Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jun 2026 07:50:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793103 Rectification under section 154 and the depreciation-related natural justice challenge were rejected because the authorities gave detailed reasons and the matter was within rectification scope. The depreciation disallowance itself was remanded for fresh factual verification, as the claim of retrospective capitalisation of engineering fees and revision of written down value required examination at assessment stage. The deletion of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D was upheld in line with binding precedent, and the section 80IA(8) computation was sustained on the basis that market value means the open-market price payable by an industrial consumer. Consequential interest and later-year depreciation grounds did not warrant interference. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793103