Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1974 (1) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....its returns of income along with and supported by the audited profit and loss accounts, depreciation statements, various other statements in detail. The assessee claimed under rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, read with Appendix I, Part I, under item III(ii), 10% depreciation and was allowed the same. According to the assessee this was allowed after consideration of the relevant facts as this had already been allowed since the assessment year 1961-62. Thereafter, the assessments were sought to be re-opened by the aforesaid notices and the petitioner challenged the said re-opening by this application under article 226 of the Constitution. In the affidavit-in-opposition in answer to the rule nisi the Income-tax Officer stated that the rea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on, (I have now ascertained that in the sister concern, M/s. Indo-Swing, C II/I-263/A, the assessee has all along claimed and has been allowed depreciation @ 7% only on identical machinery). Accordingly, I reopen the assessments for 64/65 to 66/67 under section 147(b); notice under section 148 to issue." It is apparent, therefore, that the reopening was sought, because (i) of the view of the Income-tax Officer that on the blade making machinery the petitioner is entitled to depreciation at the rate of 7% and not at the rate of 10% and as such the petitioner had enjoyed more depreciation than it was entitled to and such a view is based on the (ii) subsequent knowledge that in a sister concern the similar kind of machinery got depreciation....