CIT v. Friends Corporation

148 ITR 478High Court1984#7110 most cited

What is CIT v. Friends Corporation authority for?

When a claim for depreciation is not made in the original return, the Income Tax Officer should estimate income without allowing depreciation allowance, as per CBDT circulars and relevant sections.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Beco Engineering Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 148 ITR 478 · Section 32(1)(ii) · Section 34(1) · depreciation allowance · claim for depreciation · original return · estimated income · CBDT circular

Sections most often in play

Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Friends Corporation

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong

The appeal is partly allowed as above

ITA/1/2023HC Tripura14 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…Assessing Officer can only take into account the revised return for the purpose of making assessment, and he cannot act upon the original return which stood obliterated. 1 (2012) 347 ITR 466 (P&H) 2 (1984) 148 ITR 478 (P&H) Page 7 of 10 28. For some reason in the instant case, the Assessing Officer took no notice of the revised return, and continued the proceedings on the basis of the original return and passed an Assessment Order on 18.03.2016. This is a clear illegality vitiating his order. 29. The CIT (Appeals) noted the correct legal posi…

M/S.Bodygear International P. Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The DCIT, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 274/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Omanakuttan, Senior AR
Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…e case of (i) CIT vs. Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., 191 ITR 156 (Kar.), (ii) CCIT vs. Machine Tool Corpn. of India Ltd., 201 ITR 101 (Kar.) and the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Beco Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 148 ITR 478 (P&H). 7. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position, it can be safely concluded that the claim made in the revised return of income, although not made in the original return of income, amounts to claim made in the original return of income. It is nowhere prescribed that the claim should be made only in the original return of income fil…

M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.273/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/s. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, ICC Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. PAN : AABCB2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.334/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Bilcare Limited, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 6th Floor, B Wing, ICC 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. PAN : AABCB2242F Appellant Respondent C.O. No…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.273/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/s. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, ICC Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. PAN : AABCB2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.334/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Bilcare Limited, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 6th Floor, B Wing, ICC 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. PAN : AABCB2242F Appellant Respondent C.O. No…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - Udaipur, Agartala vs. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Agartala

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 297/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…) CIT –vs.- Rana Polycot Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 466 (P&H); (ii) CCIT –vs.- Machine Tools Corpn. Of India (1993) 201 ITR 101 (Karnataka); 4 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (iii) Beco Engineering Co. Ltd. –vs. VIT (1984) 148 ITR 478 (P&H); (iv) CIT –vs.- Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.(1991) 191 ITR 156 (Karnataka). In the case of Pr. CIT-1-vs.- Babubghai Ramanbhai Patel (2017) 84 taxmann.com 32 (Guj), it was held that once a revised return is filed within the prescribed time, the original return did not survived and that allowance claimed in the revised return had to…

Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-2, Kota

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 336/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. B. V. Maheshwari (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 139(4)Section 80C

…3. It was further submitted that once a revised return is filed, the original return couldn't be adverted to at all as was decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of depreciation claim following the decision of Beco Engg Co. Ltd. v/s. CIT (1984) 148 ITR 478 (P & H) this is followed in other decision in the case of CIT v/s Mahendra Mills (2000) 243 ITR 56 (SC) it was so decided in Kawal Textiles v/s ITO (1991) 189 ITR 339 (M.P.). 4. Thus, when the revised return is supported by Form No. 16, interest Certificate etc. then the ld. AO ought to accept the figures of revised return. Further the Ld. CIT(A…

M/S. Subham, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(4), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 402/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…into account for making the assessment, he relied on the following decisions : a) CIT Vs. Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. [191 ITR 156 (Kar)] b) CCIT Vs. Machine Tool Corporation of India Ltd. [201 ITR 101 (Kar)]. c) Beco Engineering Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [148 ITR 478 (P&H)] d) CIT Vs. Arun Textile [192 ITR 700 (Guj)]. He therefore submitted that the assessment of total income by the AO by rejecting the revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act was contrary to law. He therefore prayed that the total income of Rs.5,50,520/- declared by the assessee in the revised return of income be considered. Ld. D.R. on the o…

M/S. Claris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD) Range-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 498/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G D Agarwal, Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadav] Assessment Year: 2008-09 Claris Life Sciences Limited ................................Appellant Corporate Towers, Near Parimal Crossing Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad 380006 [Pan: Aaacc6366Q] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) Range 1, Ahmedabad …..……..….….....Respondent

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 140ASection 221Section 221(1)

…ITA No.498/Ahd/2011 Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 1 of 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SPECIAL BENCH ‘B’, AHMEDABAD [Before Shri G D Agarwal, President, Shri Pramod Kumar, Accountant Member, and Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member] Assessment year: 2008-09 Claris Life Sciences Limited ................................Appellant Corporate Towers, Near Parimal Crossing Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad 380006 [PAN: AAACC6366Q] Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Range 1, Ahmedabad …..……..….….....Respondent Appearances by: S N Soparkar, Senior Advocate, along with Urvashi Shodhan, D K Parikh and Parin…

ITO, WD-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Gourangalal Chatterjee Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1429/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1425- 1429/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA
Section 144Section 147Section 44A

…s wherein the High Courts directed the assessing authorities to allow deduction for depreciation separately while estimating the income. Some of such decisions are CIT v. Friends Corporation [1989] 180 ITR 334 (Punj. & Har.), Beco Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 478 (Punj. & Har.), CIT v. Arun Textile [1991] 192 ITR 700 (Guj.), CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 443 (Bom.), CIT v. Bishambar Dayal & Co. [1994] 21O ITR 118 (All.), Chopra Bros. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1993] 202 ITR 40 (Chd. Trib.), CIT v. Jain Construction Co. [2000] 110 Taxman 156 (Raj.) 10. As regards allow…

ITO, WD-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Gourangalal Chatterjee Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1428/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1425- 1429/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA
Section 144Section 147Section 44A

…s wherein the High Courts directed the assessing authorities to allow deduction for depreciation separately while estimating the income. Some of such decisions are CIT v. Friends Corporation [1989] 180 ITR 334 (Punj. & Har.), Beco Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 478 (Punj. & Har.), CIT v. Arun Textile [1991] 192 ITR 700 (Guj.), CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 443 (Bom.), CIT v. Bishambar Dayal & Co. [1994] 21O ITR 118 (All.), Chopra Bros. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1993] 202 ITR 40 (Chd. Trib.), CIT v. Jain Construction Co. [2000] 110 Taxman 156 (Raj.) 10. As regards allow…

ITO, WD-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Gourangalal Chatterjee Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1427/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1425- 1429/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA
Section 144Section 147Section 44A

…s wherein the High Courts directed the assessing authorities to allow deduction for depreciation separately while estimating the income. Some of such decisions are CIT v. Friends Corporation [1989] 180 ITR 334 (Punj. & Har.), Beco Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 478 (Punj. & Har.), CIT v. Arun Textile [1991] 192 ITR 700 (Guj.), CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 443 (Bom.), CIT v. Bishambar Dayal & Co. [1994] 21O ITR 118 (All.), Chopra Bros. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1993] 202 ITR 40 (Chd. Trib.), CIT v. Jain Construction Co. [2000] 110 Taxman 156 (Raj.) 10. As regards allow…

ITO, WD-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Gourangalal Chatterjee Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1426/KOL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1425- 1429/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA
Section 144Section 147Section 44A

…s wherein the High Courts directed the assessing authorities to allow deduction for depreciation separately while estimating the income. Some of such decisions are CIT v. Friends Corporation [1989] 180 ITR 334 (Punj. & Har.), Beco Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 478 (Punj. & Har.), CIT v. Arun Textile [1991] 192 ITR 700 (Guj.), CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 443 (Bom.), CIT v. Bishambar Dayal & Co. [1994] 21O ITR 118 (All.), Chopra Bros. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1993] 202 ITR 40 (Chd. Trib.), CIT v. Jain Construction Co. [2000] 110 Taxman 156 (Raj.) 10. As regards allow…

ITO, WD-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Gourangalal Chatterjee Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1425/KOL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 1425- 1429/Kol/2015 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA
Section 144Section 147Section 44A

…s wherein the High Courts directed the assessing authorities to allow deduction for depreciation separately while estimating the income. Some of such decisions are CIT v. Friends Corporation [1989] 180 ITR 334 (Punj. & Har.), Beco Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 478 (Punj. & Har.), CIT v. Arun Textile [1991] 192 ITR 700 (Guj.), CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 443 (Bom.), CIT v. Bishambar Dayal & Co. [1994] 21O ITR 118 (All.), Chopra Bros. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1993] 202 ITR 40 (Chd. Trib.), CIT v. Jain Construction Co. [2000] 110 Taxman 156 (Raj.) 10. As regards allow…

M/S. Indian Seamless Steels & Alloys Ltd vs. The Jt CIT S.R.19

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2214/MUM/2005[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 28Section 29Section 30Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43D

…sment year. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Silvassa Industries Ltd., [2013] 36 Taxmann.com 280 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd., [2008] 261 ITR 721 (Ker.); iii) CIT v/s Friends Corporation, [1989] 180 ITR 334 (P&H) iv) CIT v/s Sree Snehavalli Textiles Pvt. Ltd., [2003] 259 ITR 77 (Mad.); and v) Parksons Press Ltd. v/s ITO, [2007] 12 sot 128 (Mum.). 6. Further learned Authorised Representative submitted, assessee has not claimed depreciation in assessment year 1997–98, which was evident from the return of income filed by the assessee. He submitted, th…

ACIT, Circle-10, Kolkata vs. M/S Gourangalal Chatterjee, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 760/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri P.B. Pramanick, JCIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri D.S Damle, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 44A

…s wherein the High Courts directed the assessing authorities to allow deduction for depreciation separately while estimating the income. Some of such decisions are CIT v. Friends Corporation [1989] 180 ITR 334 (Punj. & Har.), Beco Engg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 478 (Punj. & Har.), CIT v. Arun Textile [1991] 192 ITR 700 (Guj.), CIT v. Shri Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [1989] 177 ITR 443 (Bom.), CIT v. Bishambar Dayal & Co. [1994] 21O ITR 118 (All.), Chopra Bros. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [1993] 202 ITR 40 (Chd. Trib.), CIT v. Jain Construction Co. [2000] 110 Taxman 156 (Raj.) 10. As regards allowa…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mahendra Mills

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-005394-005394 - 1994Supreme Court15 Mar 2000
For Respondent: MAHENDRA MILLS
Section 32Section 34Section 72Section 73

…absence of such particulars, the assessee cannot avail of, nor indeed can he be held entitled, to depreciation. It would be pertinent in this behalf to advert to the judgment of this Court in Beco Engineering Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1984] 148 ITR 478, where a reference was made to Circular No. 29D(XIX- 14) of 1965, dated August 31, 1965, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes which provides that where the required particulars have not been furnished by the assessee and no claim for depreciation has been made in the return, the Income-tax Officer should estimate the…