https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22402 HC held that once an assessee files a valid revised return under s.139(5) of the IT Act, it substitutes the original return, and depreciation claimed earlier but omitted in the revised return cannot be forced upon the assessee by the tax authorities. Relying on settled precedent, HC affirmed that allowance of depreciation under ss.32 and 34 is contingent on the assessee claiming it and furnishing prescribed particulars; absent such a claim, the Assessing Officer has no authority to grant depreciation suo motu. Both questions were answered in the affirmative, upholding the Tribunal and deciding against the Revenue. en-us Tue, 25 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Dec 2025 13:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22402 HC held that once an assessee files a valid revised return under s.139(5) of the IT Act, it substitutes the original return, and depreciation claimed earlier but omitted in the revised return cannot be forced upon the assessee by the tax authorities. Relying on settled precedent, HC affirmed that allowance of depreciation under ss.32 and 34 is contingent on the assessee claiming it and furnishing prescribed particulars; absent such a claim, the Assessing Officer has no authority to grant depreciation suo motu. Both questions were answered in the affirmative, upholding the Tribunal and deciding against the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 25 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22402