The assessee claimed depreciation on the written down value which the Assessing Officer disallowed on the ground that the assessee had not opted therefor in terms of the proviso to rule 5(1A) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this. The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s appeal on the question of permission to claim depreciation on written down value basis holding that no particular format or procedure had been laid down in the second proviso in relation to exercise of option by an assessee and that for the assessment year 1999-2000, the assessee had claimed depreciation in accordance with sub-rule (1) read with appendix I and this was in proper compliance with the requirements of the second proviso to rule 5(1A) of the Rules. High Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue as no substantial question of law. (AY.2000-01)
CIT v. Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 543/ (2024)460 ITR 159 (P&H)(HC)
S. 32 : Depreciation-Claimed depreciation in accordance with Appendix I-No substantial question of law. [ITR. 5(1), 5(1)(IA)]