2002 (10) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee since he has specifically withdrawn the claim for depreciation by filing revised return?" - For the assessment year 1988-89, no depreciation was required to be allowed if the same had not been claimed. If a claim made in the original return had been given up in the revised return, there was no obligation to consider the claim for depreciation. The Tribunal was therefore right in upholding the o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the case of CIT v. Mahendra Mills [2000] 243 ITR 56, has held that if the revised return filed by the assessee is a valid return and the assessee has withdrawn the claim for depreciation that it had made in the original return, then the assessment based on the revised return without considering the claim for depreciation would be a proper assessment. The court observed that the privilege of cla .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the apex court settles the law, and unless the subsequent amendment to the statute is expressly given retrospective effect, the law laid down by the apex court will remain the binding law for the period prior to the amendment. The newly added Explanation takes effect only on and from April 1, 2002, and will not be applicable for prior years. For the assessment year 1988-89, no depreciation was r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X