Held that the order of the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.  The Principal Commissioner had not appreciated the fact that the assessee had credited the excess depreciation of the earlier 11 assessment years to the “reserves and surplus” account in the balance-sheet in terms of the amended provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and following the guidance note issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India in regard to reversal of depreciation based on the life of the asset irrespective of the method of depreciation followed. The tax effect of expenses or income adjusted directly against the reserves or securities premium account either pursuant to court order or under transitional provisions prescribed in the Accounting Standard, any income credited directly to a reserve account or a similar account should be net of the tax effect. However, reversal of the provision of depreciation was not an income. Therefore, the assessee’s method of crediting the reversal of excess depreciation to the “reserves and surplus” account is  in accordance with law and, hence, the Assessing Officer’s action of accepting the return could not be disapproved. Revision order is quashed and set aside. (AY.2016-17)