2025 (12) TMI 1530

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on 22.08.2014 are as follows:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that reopening of the assessment was not proper and quashed the assessment proceedings? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, depreciation on computer software is to be allowed at 25% especially when the amendment laying down the rate of depreciation on computer software @ 60% was prospective in nature and is applicable from the Assessment year 2003 - 04?" 3. We have heard the detailed submissions of Mr.R.Karthik, appearing for the appellant / Revenue and Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, appearing for the respondent / assessee. 4. In respect of assessme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the claim on merits, overruling which, an order of assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was passed on 25.11.2009, confirming the proposal for reassessment. 8. It was the case of the Department that the claim of depreciation at the rate of 60% was incorrect and that the claim to be allowed only to extent of 25%. Reference was made to the amendment in the depreciation schedule as per which software was included within the ambit of higher rate of depreciation only from AY 2003 - 04 onwards. 9. The respondent succeeded both in first and second appeal, the authorities holding that the assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing authority was barred by limitation as full and true disclosures had been made by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... incorrect. 13. That apart, the claim had been looked into even at the stage of assessment since the assessment order was passed under scrutiny and there is no merit in the Department stating that the claim had escaped the attention of the assessing officer. 14. We have heard both learned counsel. 15. There is no dispute as far as the dates and events are concerned. The order of assessment passed under Section 143(3) clearly refers to the return of income and the financials that have been looked into in detail. Discussions have taken place with the authorized representatives. The Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v Kelvinator of India Ltd., [256 ITR 1], holds, based on the presumption under Section 114(e) of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mption under section 10A/B of the Act. The issue of depreciation is not a subject matter of the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 was passed on 05.09.2007, and hence there is no merger of the order of assessment dated 17.03.2005 with order of assessment dated 05.09.2007 as far as the issue of depreciation is concerned. (See CIT v Alagendran Finance Ltd. [293 ITR 1]) 20. The argument that the limitation must be computed with reference to order of assessment dated 05.09.2007 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 of the Act is rejected. On the basis of the above discussion, Substantial question no.1, is answered in favour of the assessee. 21. As far as the merits of the re-assessment, we find that prior to....