CPT V24P7-Art1 (Content).pmd - Taxmann

Landmark Rulings
(c) Further, return is filed within due date
as specified under section 139(4).
686
If loss not claimed in original return, it
can’t be claimed through revised return
either
In Karnataka Forest Development Corp. Ltd.
v. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 314 (Bang. -
Trib.), the assessee filed its return of income
declaring certain income. Thereafter, a revised
return was filed under section 139(5) declaring
losses. During the assessment proceedings, the
AO observed that the revised return filed by
the assessee under section 139(5) was not valid.
He, accordingly, computed the taxable income
of the assessee. Assessee filed an appeal before
the CIT(A) challenging the non-consideration
of the revised return. The CIT(A) held that the
revised return was return which should have
been filed within the time specified under
section 139(3) and, therefore, the loss return
filed beyond the time-limit prescribed under
section 139(3) was null and void.
The Tribunal held in favour of revenue - It was
held that from a literal reading of section
139(3), it is seen that where any person claims
a loss for any previous year and also claims
that the loss or any part thereof should be
carried forward, then the return has to be
furnished within the time allowed under subsection
(1) of section 139. In the instant case,
the original return filed by the assessee was
under section 139(1), but there was no claim
of loss or loss to be carried forward. Therefore,
it cannot be treated as a return under section
139(3). Having filed the original return of income
under section 139(1), the assessee cannot later
on file the revised return of income claiming
the loss on the ground that it was discovered
subsequently as the losses for previous years
must be available with assessee at the time of
filing of return under section 139(1). Therefore,
the argument of CIT(A) that when the assessee
August 1 to 15, 2012 u TAXMANN’S CORPORATE PROFESSIONALS TODAY u Vol. 24 u 66
}
was claiming the loss for the relevant assessment
year and preceeding years relevant to AY,
then the assessee was required to file the return
under section 139(3), was to be accepted.
Therefore, the revised return filed under section
139(5) could not be accepted and had to be
treated as null and void.
No HRA exemption to employee on ‘rent
reimbursed’ to employer for rent-free
accommodation
In Dy. CIT v. Kuldeep D. Kaura [2012] 23
taxmann.com 225 (Ahmedabad - Trib.), assesseeemployee
was living in a house provided as
rent free accommodation by his employer. This
house was taken on lease by his employer.
Subsequently, employee reimbursed the rent
of accommodation to the employer and he
also received HRA for such reimbursement.
Accordingly, the value of rent free
accommodation came out to be ‘nil’ under
section 17(2) as assessee was reimbursing full
amount of rent to the employer. However,
simultaneously, the assessee also claimed
exemption under section 10(13A) for house
rent allowance received in respect of rent
reimbursed to employer. AO opined that
exemption for HRA would amount to double
benefit since assessee had claimed ‘nil’ value
of rent free accommodation. CIT(A) allowed
assessee’s appeal.
The Tribunal held in favour of revenue - It was
held that assessee was getting double benefits,
i.e., free use of accommodation provided by
the employer which was taken by the employer
on lease and in addition to this the assessee
was also getting HRA. However, against these
two benefits, assessee was making payment of
rent in respect of one property. Hence, as
assessee was getting double benefit, one had
to be taxed in any case because only one payment
was being made by the assessee on account
of rent. Therefore, as the perquisite value of
}