Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
A revised return validly filed on discovery of bona fide omissions under section 139(5) supplants the original return for all assessment purposes, so the original computation cannot be treated as surviving separately for depreciation. The Court held that the revised return here was not a mere change in depreciation mode but also corrected omitted claims, and there was no mala fide intent. It further held that Rule 5(1A) is directory, but the option to switch from SLM to WDV cannot extend the statutory due date under section 139(1). Since the revised return replaced the original and the depreciation option was otherwise within the year concerned, the assessee was allowed to adopt WDV and the revenue's challenge failed.
A revised return validly filed on discovery of bona fide omissions under section 139(5) supplants the original return for all assessment purposes, so the original computation cannot be treated as surviving separately for depreciation. The Court held that the revised return here was not a mere change in depreciation mode but also corrected omitted claims, and there was no mala fide intent. It further held that Rule 5(1A) is directory, but the option to switch from SLM to WDV cannot extend the statutory due date under section 139(1). Since the revised return replaced the original and the depreciation option was otherwise within the year concerned, the assessee was allowed to adopt WDV and the revenue's challenge failed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
