PCIT-III, Bangalore v. Wipro Ltd.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 10B; 72; 139(5) of Income-tax Act; 1961

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• PCIT-III, Banglore & Anr Vs WIPRO(Supreme Court)* *Date-11th July 2022* *Sub-What is the effect of filing of revised return, when a revised return can be filed and whether a claim once made in the original return can be subsequently withdrawn by filing the revised return*. The Apex Court in this case was considering in this case a situation where WIPRO had initially claimed deduction u/s 10B of the Income-tax Act 1961 while filing the original return and had thus opted not to carry forward the loss in view of the income being exempt. However subsequently the company filed a revised return by giving up claim u/s…
• What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
• How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?

Material facts and procedural background

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Bangalore and another …Appellants

short, ‘ITAT’), allowing the assessee’s claim for carry forward of losses

2. The respondent-assessee is a 100% export-oriented unit and

Remote Processing Services. Assessee filed its return of income on

Act. Along with the original return filed on 31.10.2001, the assessee

Appellant / assessee submissions

appearing for the Revenue has vehemently contended that in the

3.1 It is submitted that in the present case, the original return of

of losses under Section 72 of the IT Act. It is submitted that therefore

submitted that in the present case, the ITAT has wrongly noted that the

Revenue / respondent submissions

respondent making the claim for carry forward of loss. It is submitted

of the assessee that the submission on behalf of the revenue that by the

4.11 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the Revenue that

7. It is the case on behalf of the Revenue that as there was a non-

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

claimed by the assessee. It is submitted that this Court held that the

audit report long after the return. The Bombay High Court held that

5. We have heard Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG appearing on

Operative decision and relief

special leave petition has been dismissed as withdrawn and the revenue

contrary view are hereby set aside and it is held that the assessee shall

Ratio and legal principle

• The packaged judgment addresses PCIT-III, Banglore & Anr Vs WIPRO(Supreme Court)* *Date-11th July 2022* *Sub-What is the effect of filing of revised return, when a revised return can be filed and whether a claim once made in the original return can be subsequently withdrawn by filing the revised return*. The Apex Court in this case was considering in this case a situation where WIPRO had initially claimed deduction u/s 10B of the Income-tax Act 1961 while filing the original return and had thus opted not to carry forward the loss in view of the income being exempt. However subsequently the company filed a revised return by giving up claim u/s…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
• Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with pcit-iii, banglore & anr vs wipro(supreme court)* *date-11th july 2022* *sub-what is the effect of filing of revised return, when a revised return can be filed and whether a claim once made in the original return can be subsequently withdrawn by filing the revised return*. the apex court in this case was considering in this case a situation where wipro had initially claimed deduction u/s 10b of the income-tax act 1961 while filing the original return and had thus opted not to carry forward the loss in view of the income being exempt. however subsequently the company filed a revised return by giving up claim u/s… Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.

Practitioner action points

• Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
• Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
• Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.

Does this case match your facts?

Section / provision impact

• 10B - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• 72 - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• 139(5) of Income-tax Act - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• 1961 - apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

Similar issue / useful comparison

• PCIT v. Ashwin Purshotam Bajaj - Court / Tribunal to be verified
• PCIT v. N.S. Software - Court / Tribunal to be verified
• The Nakodar Primary Cooperative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd vs. Income Tax Officer, Nakodar - ITAT Amritsar

Different outcome / possible distinction

• Shakti Singh Gulia vs ITO - Partly allowed
• Dy. CIT v. Curosis Healthcare Private Limited - Operative order controls

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all judgments
• Income-tax study guide

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: SANITIZED_OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_JUDGMENT_COPY · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY