TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that a finance lease is a type of lease wherein the lessor transfers all the risks and rewards associated with the asset to the lessee before the lease agreement expires, and therefore the assessee is not entitled to claim depreciation on finance lease. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to Rs.8,45,72,646/- by ignoring the fact that the assessee had made a fresh claim during the course of assessment, which cannot be allowed in the absence of a valid return. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evised, is set out hereunder: Particulars Amount as per ITR Amount as per Proposed Tax treatment Net profit before tax (as per audited financial statement) 10,60,94,607 10,60,94,607 Add: Rental Income from finance lease (Shown as "Any other income not included in profit and loss account under ITR") 10,53,72,938 - Less: Interest income shown in audited financial statement (Shown as "Any Other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP") 3,72,27,865 - Add: all Other disallowance as specified in computation enclosed as Exhibit 1 4,74,24,734/- 4,74,24,734/- Less: all Other Allowances as specified in Computation enclosed as Exhibit I (20,25,558) (20,25,558) Less: Depreciation as per Inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther the claim of Rs.6,81,45,073/- is a fresh claim or not and whether it can be allowed in the absence of a valid return. 10. In the recent case of M/s. Shriram Investments v. CIT, Civil Appeal No. 6274 of 2013, judgment dated 04.10.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "8. ........ The assessing officer had no jurisdiction to consider the claim made by the assessee in the revised return filed after the time prescribed by Section 139(5) for filing a revised return had already expired." 11. Thus, a view can be taken that the appellant is not entitled to the deduction of claim of Rs. 6,81,45,073/-, However, one needs to be conscious of the fact that this deduction cannot be viewed on a stand-alone basis. It has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs.15,27,17,719/-, for which addition has been made by the AO. In effect, what the appellant is requesting is that the addition made by the AO be confined to Rs.8,45,72,646/- (Rs.15,27,17,719 less Rs.6,81,45,073). I am of the view that the claim of the appellant is justified and reasonable. One has to treat the transaction as a whole and not in bits and pieces. When the appellant has changed the methodology for its claim (both for offering income and for claiming deduction of finance lease), the net effect has to be taken into account. In the instant case, it is evident that both offering of income and claiming of deduction are intrinsically linked to each other and cannot be seen in isolation. The reasonableness of the appellant's clai....