Held, dismissing the appeal of the Revenue that there was no dispute that the assessee had claimed depreciation in accordance with sub-rule (1) read with appendix I before the due date for furnishing the return of income. The view taken by the Assessing Officer as affirmed by the first appellate authority that the assessee should opt for one of the two methods was not a statutory requirement. Therefore, the Department was not justified in reducing the claim of depreciation of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had not specifically opted for the written down value method.

CIT v. G. R. Govindarajulu and Sons( 2015) 378 1  280 CTR 303/ 125 DTR 345 (SC)/ [2016] 16 SCC 335 applied.  (AY.2001-02, 2006-07)