Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 913 - HC - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - claim of deduction amortized value of leasehold land under the provisions of section 35D and depreciation on office equipments - Held that:- As regards the claim for depreciation on office equipments at the rate of 15%, the Tribunal noted that such claims had been allowed in earlier years in the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) of the Act and such orders had attained finality. Insofar as the claim under section 35D of the Act is concerned, the Tribunal has found that the deduction under section 35D had been allowed in the earlier years also and has rightly observed that it is not the case of the revenue that on the issue of deduction under section 35D, the deduction for earlier years had been withdrawn, inasmuch as, without disturbing the earlier years, it cannot be said that the claim of deduction under section 35D was not allowable to the assessee. Thus, the Tribunal, on merits, has found that the view adopted by the Assessing Officer to be sustainable view. The revenue had not brought any material on record to demonstrate that the view adopted by the Assessing Officer was an impermissible view and was contrary to law so as to warrant exercise of revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act. Having regard to the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the merits of each claims of the assessee, it is evident that the view adopted by the Assessing Officer was a plausible view. It is settled legal position, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME Court ) , that if on the same issue, two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one such view, the same would not warrant exercise of powers under section 263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|