Dismissing the appeals of the Revenue the Court held that the provisions of Explanation 5 would not be applicable to the controversy in issue pertaining to the AY. 1999-2000, and the assessee having validly withdrawn its claim to depreciation, it was not permissible for the Assessing Officer to grant the depreciation taking into account the amended provisions of section 32 of the Act. Referred CIT v. Mahendra Mills (2000) 243 ITR 56 (SC) (AY. 1999-2000)
ACIT v. G. E. Lighting (I) P. Ltd (2023)454 ITR 285/ 293 Taxman 435/ 333 CTR 129/ 227 DTR 73 (SC) CIT v. Southern Petro-Chemical Industries (2023)454 ITR 285/ 293 Taxman 435/ 333 CTR 129/ 227 DTR 73 (SC) Editorial: Decision of Gujarat High Court and Madras High Court, affirmed. CIT v. G. E. Lighting (I) P. Ltd (Guj)(HC) (ITA No. 325 of 2009 dt.8-3-2010, CIT v. Southern Petro-Chemical Industries (Mad)(HC) (TA No. 442 of 2005 dt.25-4-2012)
S. 32 : Depreciation-Revised return-Withdrawing claim to depreciation-Assessing Officer granting depreciation under amended provisions-Held to be not permissible. [S. 32(1), Expln.5]