It is not mandatory for ITO to impose the benefit. If the ...

ITO Cannot Impose Depreciation if Assessee Withdraws Claim in Revised Return Before April 1, 2002.

December 23, 2011

Case Laws Income Tax AT

It is not mandatory for ITO to impose the benefit. If the assessee withdrew claim of depreciation in revised return, ITO cannot allow depreciation adverting to particulars furnished in original return prior 01.04.2002.... - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

It is not mandatory for ITO to impose the benefit. If the ...

ITO Cannot Impose Depreciation if Assessee Withdraws Claim in Revised Return Before April 1, 2002.

December 23, 2011

Case Laws Income Tax AT

You may also like:

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee company failed to provide bonafide explanation for inflated expenses claimed in revised return, contrary to audited...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed despite the assessee withdrawing the exemption claim u/s 10(38) for Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on sale of penny stocks and offering...

Validity of revised return filed vis-a-vis claims made thereunder - revised return treated as non-est - the appellant filed his original return otherwise than u/s 139(1)...

No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed on the assessee for disallowance of depreciation. The ITAT held that the assessee did not deliberately claim depreciation with an...

The preliminary assessment u/s 143(1) is limited to processing the return for arithmetical errors, incorrect expense claims, verifying audit reports, deductions, and...

Claim of expenditure in the revised return - Once, the assessee has realized that the claim was wrongly not made, the assessee has every right to revise the return...

Non considering the revised return filed by the assessee for rectifying the mistake in claim of depreciation - In this case, the original return was not filed under...

Validity of revised return u/s 139(5) - return was revised after issuance of intimation u/s 143(1) - claim of benefit of excess set off of losses and carry forward of...

Exemption u/s 11 was not claimed in original return due to auditor's mistake in Form No. 10B. Assessee rectified mistake by filing revised Form No. 10B. Statutory claim...

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee in this case has never revised its return during the period prescribed u/s 139(1) rather withdrew the claim during assessment...

The issue pertained to the validity of filing a revised return after the prescribed time limit. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, stating that after the...

Section 80P deduction claim filed in a return submitted in response to notice u/s 142(1) is valid. The Income Tax Act does not mandate that the return must be filed u/ss...

Revised return of loss/unabsorbed depreciation – even if the assessee has not filed revised return, AO is bound to allow carried forward loss or depreciation as per the record - AT

Exemption u/s 11 - Admittedly, the claim of exemption was made in the revised return filed within the statutory time limit but was treated as defective only on flimsy...

Validity of revised return 139(5) - Revised return did not conform to the prescription of section 139(5), before its substitution w.e.f. A.Y. 2017-18, which provided for...

Quick Updates: