We forgot to claim the one-fifth transition amount and the s.115JB(2A)(b) other-comprehensive-income reduction in the return. We raised it by letter during the assessment. The CIT(A) has thrown it out because no revised return was filed. Is that the end of it?
No. The bar on entertaining a fresh claim without a revised return operates against the Assessing Officer, not against an appellate authority. Where the material was before the CIT(A) he should have examined it and granted the reduction from book profit if it was allowable, and the Tribunal restored the two Ind-AS claims to the Assessing Officer to be reconsidered on the revised Form 29B.
Decided by the ITAT (Amit Shukla, Judicial Member and Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member (ITAT Mumbai 'C' Bench)) on 2024-05-16, reported as ITA No.1400/Mum/2023 (assessee) and ITA No.2090/Mum/2023 (Revenue), Assessment Year 2017-18; heard 22 February 2024, pronounced 16 May 2024. It bears on section 115JB, section 115JB(2A), section 115JB(2C), section 143(3), section 139(5), section 119(2)(b), section 14A, section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny, Appeals and Deductions & Disallowances matters.
First-time Ind AS adoption produced a great many omitted claims, because the s.115JB(2A) other-comprehensive-income adjustments and the s.115JB(2C) one-fifth spread were new and the return utilities and Form 29B were being learned in the same year. This order is the practical answer where the claim was missed and the s.139(5) window has closed: the appellate route is open, and a revised Form 29B certified by the auditor is the document that carries it. Two limits. The Tribunal did not decide that the claims were good — it recorded that the Assessing Officer had simply not dealt with them and directed reconsideration "if the claim of the assessee is found to be in accordance with the law", so this is relief for statistical purposes, not a merits win. And the Tribunal expressly agreed that the CIT(A) was right that no fresh claim could be made before the Assessing Officer without a revised return; the distinction it drew is between the Assessing Officer and the appellate authority, so the same order is authority for the Department on the first half of that proposition.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee is engaged in civil, mining, marine and engineering construction. For AY 2017-18 it returned nil total income and book profit under s.115JB of Rs.123,38,64,000. During the assessment proceedings it discovered that it had failed to claim, in computing book profit, one-fifth of the Ind AS transition amount and a reduction under s.115JB(2A)(b) in respect of amounts debited to other comprehensive income under the head "items that will not be re-classified to profit or loss", the latter being a loss on fair valuation of defined benefit plans of Rs.183.88 lakhs. It raised the claim by a letter dated 6 December 2019 enclosing a revised computation of book profit. The Assessing Officer did not discuss the claim at all, adopted the assessee's own original book profit computation and then made further additions on account of s.14A and foreseeable losses, arriving at book profit of Rs.127,89,99,022 in the assessment under s.143(3) dated 31 December 2019. The CIT(A)-53 rejected the claim by order dated 2 March 2023 on the ground that it had not been made by filing a revised return or by an application under s.119(2)(b), and that the assessee had not substantiated the adjustment against its audited financial accounts. Before the Tribunal the assessee filed a revised Form 29B certified by the auditor.
The assessee's ground on book profit was allowed to the extent indicated, and its appeal allowed for statistical purposes. The CIT(A) was right that no fresh claim could be raised before the Assessing Officer without a revised return, but that restriction does not apply to an appellate authority; where the details were before the CIT(A) he should have examined them and granted the reductions from book profit if allowable. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the computation of book profit in the light of the revised Form 29B, to grant the deduction if the claim is found to be in accordance with law, and to give a hearing before disagreeing (paragraph 038).
The Tribunal recorded as an admitted fact that the assessee had not originally claimed either reduction from the book profit computation, and that it had made the claim before the Assessing Officer by letter which the Assessing Officer did not consider. It then drew the distinction that decides the ground: the CIT(A) had correctly upheld the Assessing Officer to the extent that no fresh claim could have been raised before him without a revised return, "But it does not apply to an appellate authority". Since the details were available before the CIT(A), he should have examined them and should have granted the deduction from book profit of the two items if allowable to the assessee. Before the Tribunal the assessee had filed a revised Form 29B duly certified by the auditor; a claim not made in the original return, when made before the appellate authorities, deserves to be considered. The Tribunal accordingly did not itself adjudicate the merits of the two Ind-AS items but restored the computation to the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant the deduction if the claim accords with law, to allow the assessee to explain it, and to give an opportunity of hearing before disagreeing (paragraph 038).
No doubt, a claim was not made in the original return of income, however when such claim is made before the appellate authorities, same deserves to be considered.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The bar on entertaining a fresh claim without a revised return operates against the Assessing Officer, not against an appellate authority. Where the material was before the CIT(A) he should have examined it and granted the reduction from book profit if it was allowable, and the Tribunal restored the two Ind-AS claims to the Assessing Officer to be reconsidered on the revised Form 29B. This was decided by the ITAT (Amit Shukla, Judicial Member and Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member (ITAT Mumbai 'C' Bench)) and bears on section 115JB, section 115JB(2A), section 115JB(2C), section 143(3), section 139(5), section 119(2)(b), section 14A, section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No.1400/Mum/2023 (assessee) and ITA No.2090/Mum/2023 (Revenue), Assessment Year 2017-18; heard 22 February 2024, pronounced 16 May 2024. First-time Ind AS adoption produced a great many omitted claims, because the s.115JB(2A) other-comprehensive-income adjustments and the s.115JB(2C) one-fifth spread were new and the return utilities and Form 29B were being learned in the same year. This order is the practical answer where the claim was missed and the s.139(5) window has closed: the appellate route is open, and a revised Form 29B certified by the auditor is the document that carries it. Two limits. The Tribunal did not decide that the claims were good — it recorded that the Assessing Officer had simply not dealt with them and directed reconsideration "if the claim of the assessee is found to be in accordance with the law", so this is relief for statistical purposes, not a merits win. And the Tribunal expressly agreed that the CIT(A) was right that no fresh claim could be made before the Assessing Officer without a revised return; the distinction it drew is between the Assessing Officer and the appellate authority, so the same order is authority for the Department on the first half of that proposition. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Get the revised computation of book profit and a revised Form 29B certified by the auditor on record before the appellate authority; that is the document the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to work from.
The assessee is engaged in civil, mining, marine and engineering construction. For AY 2017-18 it returned nil total income and book profit under s.115JB of Rs.123,38,64,000. During the assessment proceedings it discovered that it had failed to claim, in computing book profit, one-fifth of the Ind AS transition amount and a reduction under s.115JB(2A)(b) in respect of amounts debited to other comprehensive income under the head "items that will not be re-classified to profit or loss", the latter being a loss on fair valuation of defined benefit plans of Rs.183.88 lakhs. It raised the claim by a letter dated 6 December 2019 enclosing a revised computation of book profit. The Assessing Officer did not discuss the claim at all, adopted the assessee's own original book profit computation and then made further additions on account of s.14A and foreseeable losses, arriving at book profit of Rs.127,89,99,022 in the assessment under s.143(3) dated 31 December 2019. The CIT(A)-53 rejected the claim by order dated 2 March 2023 on the ground that it had not been made by filing a revised return or by an application under s.119(2)(b), and that the assessee had not substantiated the adjustment against its audited financial accounts. Before the Tribunal the assessee filed a revised Form 29B certified by the auditor. The matter was decided on 2024-05-16 by the ITAT (Amit Shukla, Judicial Member and Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member (ITAT Mumbai 'C' Bench)). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The assessee's ground on book profit was allowed to the extent indicated, and its appeal allowed for statistical purposes. The CIT(A) was right that no fresh claim could be raised before the Assessing Officer without a revised return, but that restriction does not apply to an appellate authority; where the details were before the CIT(A) he should have examined them and granted the reductions from book profit if allowable. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the computation of book profit in the light of the revised Form 29B, to grant the deduction if the claim is found to be in accordance with law, and to give a hearing before disagreeing (paragraph 038).
The Tribunal recorded as an admitted fact that the assessee had not originally claimed either reduction from the book profit computation, and that it had made the claim before the Assessing Officer by letter which the Assessing Officer did not consider. It then drew the distinction that decides the ground: the CIT(A) had correctly upheld the Assessing Officer to the extent that no fresh claim could have been raised before him without a revised return, "But it does not apply to an appellate authority". Since the details were available before the CIT(A), he should have examined them and should have granted the deduction from book profit of the two items if allowable to the assessee. Before the Tribunal the assessee had filed a revised Form 29B duly certified by the auditor; a claim not made in the original return, when made before the appellate authorities, deserves to be considered. The Tribunal accordingly did not itself adjudicate the merits of the two Ind-AS items but restored the computation to the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant the deduction if the claim accords with law, to allow the assessee to explain it, and to give an opportunity of hearing before disagreeing (paragraph 038). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "No doubt, a claim was not made in the original return of income, however when such claim is made before the appellate authorities, same deserves to be considered."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2024-05-16 and is reported as ITA No.1400/Mum/2023 (assessee) and ITA No.2090/Mum/2023 (Revenue), Assessment Year 2017-18; heard 22 February 2024, pronounced 16 May 2024. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 115JB, section 115JB(2A), section 115JB(2C), section 143(3), section 139(5), section 119(2)(b), section 14A, section 80-IA, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The assessee's ground on book profit was allowed to the extent indicated, and its appeal allowed for statistical purposes. The CIT(A) was right that no fresh claim could be raised before the Assessing Officer without a revised return, but that restriction does not apply to an appellate authority; where the details were before the CIT(A) he should have examined them and granted the reductions from book profit if allowable. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the computation of book profit in the light of the revised Form 29B, to grant the deduction if the claim is found to be in accordance with law, and to give a hearing before disagreeing (paragraph 038). It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny, Appeals and Deductions & Disallowances matters, on section 115JB, section 115JB(2A), section 115JB(2C), section 143(3), section 139(5), section 119(2)(b), section 14A, section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Amit Shukla, Judicial Member and Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member (ITAT Mumbai 'C' Bench). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Separate the two heads and evidence each: the s.115JB(2A)(b) reduction for amounts debited to other comprehensive income under "items that will not be re-classified to profit or loss" (here a loss on fair valuation of defined benefit plans), and the one-fifth of the transition amount under s.115JB(2C). Tie the s.115JB(2A)(b) figure directly to the face of the statement of profit and loss and the transition figure to the Ind AS 101 reconciliation, so the appellate authority can see the claim is substantiated and not merely asserted. Take the point that the restriction on fresh claims applies to the assessing authority and not to the appellate authority — and be ready for the Department to rely on the same order for the first half of that proposition. Where the s.139(5) window is still open, file the revised return anyway; this is a fallback, not a substitute.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. The citator returns nothing for this doc id. A name search shows the assessee's own later appeal, ITD Cementation India Ltd v DCIT, ITAT Mumbai, 17 March 2025, which was opened: the Bench there recorded that 'The Coordinate Bench in its appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 in ITA No. 2090/Mum/2023, dated 16.05.2024, elaborately dealt with the observations and findings' and followed it — but on the allowability of foreseeable losses under the percentage completion method, not on this order's holding about an omitted Ind-AS reduction from book profit claimed without a revised return. That holding has not been taken up by any later Bench. No High Court or Supreme Court decision and no appeal against this order was found. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The electronic text of this order is rough in places. Paragraph 036 contains an obvious slip — "the impact of the transition to adoption Ind AS with effect from 1 January 2070" — the date is a typographical error and the transition date on the facts is 1 April 2016. The same paragraph twice mis-renders "section 115JB" as "15 JB". The paragraph also states the transition amount at Rs.565.05 lakhs with one-fifth at Rs.113.01 lakhs, while ground 2 as raised describes the transition adjustment as Rs.1,22,07,000 (Rs.122.07 lakhs) — the ground and the body of the order do not reconcile on that figure and the Tribunal did not resolve it, leaving quantification to the Assessing Officer. The disallowance grounds decided in this order also cover s.14A, foreseeable losses under AS-7 and s.80-IA; only the s.115JB Ind-AS ground is summarised here. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The assessee's ground on book profit was allowed to the extent indicated, and its appeal allowed for statistical purposes. The CIT(A) was right that no fresh claim could be raised before the Assessing Officer without a revised return, but that restriction does not apply to an appellate authority; where the details were before the CIT(A) he should have examined them and granted the reductions from book profit if allowable. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the computation of book profit in the light of the revised Form 29B, to grant the deduction if the claim is found to be in accordance with law, and to give a hearing before disagreeing (paragraph 038).
TaxSphere, “ITD Cementation India Ltd v DCIT — an omitted Ind-AS reduction from book profit can still be claimed before the appellate authority”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/itd-cementation-ind-as-book-profit-claim-without-revised-return/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
On conversion to Ind AS our convertible debentures were parked under "other equity" and a note called them the equity component of a compound financial instrument. The Assessing Officer has treated the whole amount as transition amount and is adding one-fifth a year to book profit. Can he?
We converged to Ind AS in FY 2016-17 and claimed one-fifth of the transition reserve as a reduction from book profit. The Assessing Officer has knocked out three components. Which of them can he actually exclude?
We filed the original return under MAT claiming MAT credit, then filed a revised return within the due date opting for s.115BAA. The Assessing Officer says that is a prohibited withdrawal of the option. Is it, and what happens to the MAT credit and our brought-forward losses?
My client is a Category III Alternative Investment Fund. It filed its own return, overstated a section 14A disallowance by more than a crore, and the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) both refused to correct it, citing Goetze. Is a revised computation before the Assessing Officer really worthless?
