TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. ABT Ltd. [ 2014 (10) TMI 788 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held as under:- If the assessee exercised the option in terms of the second proviso to rule 5(1A) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, at the time of furnishing of return of income, it will suffice and no separate letter or request or intimation with regard to exercise of option is required. Since the returns were filed in accordance with section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the form prescribed therein makes a provision for exercising an option in respect of the claim of depreciation, no separate procedure is required. In these circumstances we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT (A) Since the retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when it held that the reopening of assessment itself is bad in law? 3.The relevant findings of the learned Tribunal in para 5 of the order dated 11th August 2015 are also quoted below for ready reference. 5.After hearing both the sides, we find that the Ld. CIT (A) had rightly decided the issue by following the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal cited herein above because in the case of the assessee the claim was made in the return of income as well as reflected in the audit report filed along with the return of income, therefore it would amount to exercise of the option as required under Second proviso to Rule-5(1A) and accordingly depreciation @ 80% on the windmill of the assessee has to be allowed. Further the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cedure is required, as contended by the Department. We are in agreement with the reasoning of the Tribunal. 21. Accordingly, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 5.Similarly in CIT Vs. ABT Ltd. (supra), another Bench of this Court held as under: 4.In the above-said decision, this Court, following the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 229 ITR 772 (CIT V. Vijaya Hirasa Kalamkar (HUF), held as follows: 20. A reading of the above-said decision of the Bombay High Court makes it clear that if the assessee exercised the option in terms of second proviso to Rule 5(1A) of the Income Tax Rules at the time of furnishing of return of income, it will suffice and no separa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
