TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the asst. yr. 1995-96. 2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. In his order under s. 263, the CIT observed that the AO has allowed excess depreciation on various assets even though these were used for less than 180 days. According to the CIT, the AO should have allowed 50 per cent of the normal rate instead of 100 per cent as the assets were used for a period of less than 18....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has made correct claim of depreciation, which has not been considered by the AO. He, therefore, submitted that no loss is caused to the Revenue as the assessee itself has agreed for not claiming the depreciation in the revised return. 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued that inspite of giving various opportunities by the CIT, the assessee failed to fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at 50 per cent of the normal rate. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued that both the conditions for invoking s. 263 were satisfied which are that the order of the AO must be erroneous and secondly, such an order should be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 5. We have considered the rival submissions, deliberated on the case law cited at Bar and carefully gone thr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess depreciation pointed out by the CIT in his order was not correct. The learned Authorised Representative has submitted the total amount of depreciation, which did not (sic) indicate the excess depreciation was withdrawn by him in respect of assets mentioned by the CIT in his order. In his order under s. 263 the CIT has just set aside the order of the AO and directed him to make fresh assessment....