TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 1114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r section 147 was bad in law. 2. Briefly stated, assessee is engaged in the business of procuring/manufacturing/ trading of milk and milk products. It is also engaged in the activity of power generation through wind mills. The original return of income was filed on 31.10.2007 and revised return of income was filed on 01.11.2007. Consequent to merger of its sister concern M/s. Creamline Nutrients Ltd., second revised return was filed on 18.09.2008 increasing the total income. There was a regular scrutiny assessment completed on 29.12.2009 accepting the income returned in which depreciation claimed was allowed. Consequent to revenue audit party objection that assessee has not exercised the option for claiming depreciation on WDV method, ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... conclusion on allowability of depreciation on windmills at 80%, issuing a notice u/s. 147 on the same issue amounts to change of opinion and such notice issued by the AO is not a valid notice and such assessment based on the invalid notice is not a valid assessment as held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2010) 320 ITR 561. 7.1. From the complete set of facts enumerated at paragraph 4 above, it is evident that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment only due to audit objection raised by the RAP. It is very clear that the Assessing Officer was not in agreement with the objection raised by the Receipt Audit Party. The fundamental requirement of issuing a notice u/s. 147 is that the Assessing Officer s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ace of Straight Line Method. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim on the ground that it had not opted for the same as per rule 5 (lA). The Hon'ble High Court held that the claim of depreciation before the due date of filing of return u/s.139(1) shall be considered as proper compliance of requirements to second proviso to Rule 5(lA). (ii) K.K.S.K. Leather Processors (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2010) 126 ITD 215 (Chen.) wherein it was held that the claim made in return of income as well as reflected in books of accounts, audit report filed along with return was more than exercise of option under second proviso to Rule 5( lA) in the absence of any prescribed form for exercising option. (iii) K. Ravi Vs. ACIT (2010) 2 ITR (Trib) 752 (Chen.) w....