HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
M/s. Shriram Investments v. The Commissioner of Income Tax III, Chennai
Civil Appeal No. 6274 of 2013
2024 INSC 760 ·
139(5) · 254
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2 judicial members · Abhay S Oka · Augustine George Masih
Assessment years: 1989-90
01 · Facts of the case
For AY 1989-90, the assessee filed an original return and two revised returns. The second revised return, dated 29 October 1991, was admittedly out of time. The Assessing Officer did not act on it, and CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal directed the officer to consider a claim for deferred revenue expenditure; the Madras High Court set that direction aside.
Source: paragraphs 1-2 / PDF pages 1, 2
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court distinguished the Tribunal’s appellate power under section 254 from the Assessing Officer’s authority to entertain a claim outside a valid return. Wipro Finance concerned the Tribunal’s own exercise of appellate power and did not decide the officer’s power to accept a time-barred revised return. Here the Tribunal had not itself considered the claim under section 254; it had only directed the officer to do so. The admitted expiry of the section 139(5) period prevented that route.
03 · Judicial decision
The Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to consider the claim in the belated revised return on the direction made here. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court judgment and dismissed the appeal.
Source: paragraphs 8-9 / PDF pages 7
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: Revenue
Assessee appeal dismissed
Procedural jurisdiction issue decided; substantive deduction eligibility not adjudicated
This does not abolish the Tribunal’s distinct section 254 powers. The statutory revision deadline reproduced in the judgment is the historical version applicable to AY 1989-90.
Source: paragraphs 9 / PDF pages 7
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
When advancing a new deduction, distinguish a timely revised return, a request before the Assessing Officer, and a claim actually entertained in appellate jurisdiction. The wording of the Tribunal’s operative order matters: a bare remand cannot confer jurisdiction on the officer that the statute withholds. Check the applicable year’s revision deadline rather than reusing the historical limit quoted here.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete identified source PDF: 7 pages. Original bytes preserved.
- No conclusion on whether the deferred revenue expenditure was substantively deductible
- Do not confuse Wipro Finance Ltd. with Principal Commissioner v. Wipro Ltd.; the judgment treats them separately
Statutory scope
This review describes the statutory version applied by the Court. Later amendments and 2025 Act correspondence require separate checks.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-04. Subsequent appeals, review proceedings, stays, reversals and later judicial treatment have not been comprehensively checked. This note is not a citator status certificate.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- official signed judgment — PDF 7 pages
SHA-256: f184e352104bf447dcdde2e7d0b689e9a5977e9e0c41acb71a6371504868ef1d
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.