← All Phrases

“Section 139(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(5)688 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(5) is Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), cited in 1,842 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(5)

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
631
citing judgments

Co-operative banks are not fundamentally different from co-operative societies, entitling them to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including for interest income treated as business income.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
391 ITR 274 · 2017 · Supreme Court
290
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A or 10AA of the Income-tax Act is computed on the profits of the eligible unit without first setting off losses from other units or non-eligible units. Conversely, losses incurred by an eligible unit are allowed to be set off against the assessee's other taxable business profits.

Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT
108 ITR 345 · 1977 · Supreme Court
209
citing judgments

Taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, assuming that the law-making authority does not commit a mistake or make an omission. There is no room for purposive interpretation under direct tax laws.

PCIT v. Wipro Ltd.
140 Taxmann.com 223 · 2022 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Exemption provisions under Chapter III, such as Section 10B(8), must be interpreted strictly, and any claim for such exemptions must be made in the return of income. The principles governing Chapter III (incomes not forming part of total income) differ from those for Chapter VIA (deductions in computing total income).

DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
88 ITD 273 · 2004 · ITAT
169
citing judgments

Interest, sales tax, and purchase tax subsidies received by an assessee are generally considered capital receipts, not revenue income, for income tax purposes.

CIT v. Torrent Power Ltd.
354 ITR 630 · 2013 · High Court
166
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free own funds to cover investments yielding exempt income, it is presumed that such investments are made from these own funds, precluding any disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A, even when borrowed funds are also available.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

Judgments citing Section 139(5)

Ravi Kant Luthra, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 444/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 444/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ravi Kant Luthra, 1-Patel Vs. Adit, Cpc, Chowk Guru Bazar, Amritsar. Bengaluru. [Pan:-Alnpk7173Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Himanshu Gupta, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA

Kae Capital Fund, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3752/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailkae Capital Fund, 74Ab, Jolly Maker Chambers Ii, Vinay Shah Marg, Mumbai – 400021 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabtk9875E V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward – 25(1)(1)., ……………… Respondent Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(35)Section 115USection 143(1)Section 154Section 250

learned AR submitted that the assessee immediately on the next date, i.e., 15.12.2020 filed the revised return of income under section 139(5) of the Act, however again repeated the same mistake of 6 correctly mentioning the total exempt income of Rs.1,65,59,461/- in the schedule of income

Ponnapula Sulochana, L/R of Late Ponnapula Sanjeeva Parthasarathy, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle -3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

ITA 295/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153DSection 80

taxmann.com 223 (SC), wherein, in paragraph 9 of the judgment, it was clearly held that, the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 139(5) can only substitute the original return filed under Section 139(1) and cannot transform into a return under Section 139(3) in order ... supra), wherein at paragraph 9 of the order, it has been clearly held that, the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 139(5) can only substitute its original return filed under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under Section 139(3), in order

Ponapula Sulochana Lr Late P Sanjeeva Parthasarathy, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

ITA 294/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153DSection 80

taxmann.com 223 (SC), wherein, in paragraph 9 of the judgment, it was clearly held that, the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 139(5) can only substitute the original return filed under Section 139(1) and cannot transform into a return under Section 139(3) in order ... supra), wherein at paragraph 9 of the order, it has been clearly held that, the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 139(5) can only substitute its original return filed under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under Section 139(3), in order

Shri Ram Agrawal, Mathura vs. ITO Ward 72(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 6591/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2023-24 Sh. Ram Agrawal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Lig 25, Phase-1, Ward-72(1), Mahavidhya Colony, Delhi Mathura Pan: Aerpa9566Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. V. Raj Kumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr.

Section 133(6)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year

ACIT, Chennai vs. Chettinad Academy of Research and Education, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1444/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(2)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Siyaram Silk Mills Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed

ITA 2941/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Girish Agrawalassistant Commissioner Of Vs. Siyaram Silk Mills Income Tax Limited Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, B5, Trade World, Aaykar Bhavan, M K Road, Kamala City, Senapati Churchgate, Bapat Margf, Lower Mumbai- 400020 Parel West, Mumbai- 400013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacs6995D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)

investments in FY 2015-16 (AY 2016-17). Recognizing the error, the appellant revised their income tax return within the permissible period under Section 139(5) to claim the contribution as revenue expenditure, given the absence of any asset creation or enduring advantage. Despite the revised return, the appellant couldn

Ram Ratan Singh Pal, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 387/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Ram Ratan Singh Pal V. The Assessment Unit 5C/111, Girdhar Kunj Nfac Sector 5, Vrindavan Colony Telibagh, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ahqpp7018N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.01.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 15.01.2021, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,81,520/- Under The Head Income From Salary. The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & A Refund Of Rs.2,50,510/- Was Created. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income Under Section 139(5) Of The Act On 25.02.2021, Declaring The Same Income Originally Returned, I.E., Rs.2,81,520/-. In The Revised Return Of Income, The Assessee Declared Income From Salary At Rs.2,81,520/- & Income From

For Appellant: Ms. Gurneet Kaur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, D.R
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 270ASection 44A

Income Tax Act, 1961 and a refund of Rs.2,50,510/- was created. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income under section 139(5) of the Act on 25.02.2021, declaring the same income originally returned, i.e., Rs.2,81,520/-. In the revised return of income, the assessee declared income

Varunendra Narayan Deekshit, Pune vs. CIT(A), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 988/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agiwal
Section 10Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Laveena Jain, Meerut vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(4), Meerut

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5163/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

filed belatedly i.e. after the due date for filing of return, the revised return can not be filed by the assessee as per section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the revised return filed by the assessee on 13.2.2019 is a non-est return. During the course

S R Constructions, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru

ITA 637/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar,CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K

S R Constructions, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

ITA 636/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

Section 40A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K

Raheja Sherwood Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(4)(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5228/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2020-21 M/S. Raheja Sherwood Ito Ward 41 (4) (3), Cooperative Housing Society C41-43, G Block Bkc, Ltd., Gilban Area, Nirlon Compound, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Western Express Highway, Bandra East, Goregaon East, Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai – 400063. Pan: Aabtr1763L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Kinjal Bhuta, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. In This Case, The Assessee Had Declared Its Total Income At Rs.38,15,171/- & Claimed The Deduction Of Rs. Rs.35,10,843/- U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act, By Filing Its Return Of Income For The A.Y Under Consideration On Dated 09/01/2021, Which Was Subsequently Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Resulted Into Assessing The Income Of The Assessee To The Rs.17,16,067/- While Disallowing Of Deduction Claimed U/S 2 M/S. Raheja Sherwood Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Kinjal Bhuta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen K. Srivastav, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139(5)Section 143Section 2Section 250Section 80P(2)(D)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020

ACIT, Central Circle 2.4, Nungambakkam vs. Rishi Enterprises, Pudukkottai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1662/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 292C

STUN areas sifMear, ‘Ay earatio, teas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI aft sitet sitet &, Soeaer Us

ACIT, Nungambakkam vs. Hariway Lines Pvt Ltd, Chennai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1657/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 292C

STUN areas sifMear, ‘Ay earatio, teas IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI aft sitet sitet &, Soeaer Us

Purnima Singh, Ratlam vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC - Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 301/IND/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44ASection 80Section 801B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

Rama Kant Saboo, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 7, Baba Siddhanatha Bhawan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1490/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 143Section 234Section 57

certified by the bank and supported by verifiable transaction records. 4. This exchange loss was claimed in a revised return filed under Section 139(5) after discovery of its omission in the original return. All transactions were genuine, traceable, and evidenced through banking documentation. No part of the loss ... normal business-like risk attached to such banking transactions. 2. Revised Return Filed in Good Faith  The appellant filed a revised return under Section 139(5) immediately after realizing that the exchange loss had been inadvertently omitted in the original return.  The statutory right to revise is intended precisely

DCIT, Circle- 2(1), New Delhi vs. Akorn India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6838/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1743/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2074/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Acit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6566/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), C.R. Building, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6837/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Dcit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(5)Section 50C

computation filed during the course of assessment proceeding cannot be accepted, since the same is not supported by a revised return filed under Section 139(5) of the Act. The Learned AO accordingly vide order sheet entry dated 3-3-2015 showcaused the assessee as to why the additional claim ... depreciation made by the assessee which is not supported by a revised return of income under Section 139(5) of the Act be ignored. The assessee vide its submission dated 10-3-2015 stated that during the physical verification of the tangible assets conducted by the assessee in the month

DCIT, Circle- 2(1), New Delhi vs. Akorn India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6837/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1743/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2074/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Acit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6566/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), C.R. Building, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6837/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Dcit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(5)Section 50C

computation filed during the course of assessment proceeding cannot be accepted, since the same is not supported by a revised return filed under Section 139(5) of the Act. The Learned AO accordingly vide order sheet entry dated 3-3-2015 showcaused the assessee as to why the additional claim ... depreciation made by the assessee which is not supported by a revised return of income under Section 139(5) of the Act be ignored. The assessee vide its submission dated 10-3-2015 stated that during the physical verification of the tangible assets conducted by the assessee in the month

Akorn India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), New Delhi

ITA 6567/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1743/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2074/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 बनाम Acit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6566/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, 4Th Floor, Building 9B, Vs. Circle 2(1), C.R. Building, Dlf Cyber City, Gurgaon. I.P. Estate, New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.6837/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 बनाम Dcit, Akorn India Pvt. Ltd. Circle 2(1), Room No.153A, Vs. 1105-1106, Ashoka Estate, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aajca8290J अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(5)Section 50C

computation filed during the course of assessment proceeding cannot be accepted, since the same is not supported by a revised return filed under Section 139(5) of the Act. The Learned AO accordingly vide order sheet entry dated 3-3-2015 showcaused the assessee as to why the additional claim ... depreciation made by the assessee which is not supported by a revised return of income under Section 139(5) of the Act be ignored. The assessee vide its submission dated 10-3-2015 stated that during the physical verification of the tangible assets conducted by the assessee in the month