AClT v. Cavikare (P) Ltd.

120 ITD 126Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#7638 most cited

What is AClT v. Cavikare (P) Ltd. authority for?

Section 139(5) regarding revision of returns is partly substantive and partly procedural, allowing for correction of omissions even in returns filed in response to a notice under Section 148.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2019.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Cavikare (P) Ltd. · 120 ITD 126 · Section 139(5) · Section 148 · revised return · omission · substantive · procedural

Judgments citing AClT v. Cavikare (P) Ltd.

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Asr Engineering and Projects Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 226/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…alogy, the assessee relied upon the case of ITO v. Banarsilal Satyanarain (1995) 55 ITD 372 (Patna) which held that a return filed in response to a notice u/s.148 can be validly revised u/s.139(5). The assessee also relied on AClT Vs. Cavikare (P) Ltd (2009), 120 ITD 126 (Chennai) to suggest that Section 139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, ho…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Asr Engineering and Projects Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 225/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…alogy, the assessee relied upon the case of ITO v. Banarsilal Satyanarain (1995) 55 ITD 372 (Patna) which held that a return filed in response to a notice u/s.148 can be validly revised u/s.139(5). The assessee also relied on AClT Vs. Cavikare (P) Ltd (2009), 120 ITD 126 (Chennai) to suggest that Section 139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, ho…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Asr Engineering and Projects Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 224/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…alogy, the assessee relied upon the case of ITO v. Banarsilal Satyanarain (1995) 55 ITD 372 (Patna) which held that a return filed in response to a notice u/s.148 can be validly revised u/s.139(5). The assessee also relied on AClT Vs. Cavikare (P) Ltd (2009), 120 ITD 126 (Chennai) to suggest that Section 139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, ho…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Asr Engineering and Projects Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 223/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…alogy, the assessee relied upon the case of ITO v. Banarsilal Satyanarain (1995) 55 ITD 372 (Patna) which held that a return filed in response to a notice u/s.148 can be validly revised u/s.139(5). The assessee also relied on AClT Vs. Cavikare (P) Ltd (2009), 120 ITD 126 (Chennai) to suggest that Section 139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, ho…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad vs. Asr Engineering and Projects Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 222/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…alogy, the assessee relied upon the case of ITO v. Banarsilal Satyanarain (1995) 55 ITD 372 (Patna) which held that a return filed in response to a notice u/s.148 can be validly revised u/s.139(5). The assessee also relied on AClT Vs. Cavikare (P) Ltd (2009), 120 ITD 126 (Chennai) to suggest that Section 139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, ho…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3)., Hyderabad vs. Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1385/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…alogy, the assessee relied upon the case of ITO v. Banarsilal Satyanarain (1995) 55 ITD 372 (Patna) which held that a return filed in response to a notice u/s.148 can be validly revised u/s.139(5). The assessee also relied on AClT Vs. Cavikare (P) Ltd (2009), 120 ITD 126 (Chennai) to suggest that Section 139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, ho…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3)., Hyderabad vs. Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1384/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…alogy, the assessee relied upon the case of ITO v. Banarsilal Satyanarain (1995) 55 ITD 372 (Patna) which held that a return filed in response to a notice u/s.148 can be validly revised u/s.139(5). The assessee also relied on AClT Vs. Cavikare (P) Ltd (2009), 120 ITD 126 (Chennai) to suggest that Section 139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, ho…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3)., Hyderabad vs. Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1383/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…alogy, the assessee relied upon the case of ITO v. Banarsilal Satyanarain (1995) 55 ITD 372 (Patna) which held that a return filed in response to a notice u/s.148 can be validly revised u/s.139(5). The assessee also relied on AClT Vs. Cavikare (P) Ltd (2009), 120 ITD 126 (Chennai) to suggest that Section 139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, ho…

Dy. Commsioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3)., Hyderabad vs. Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited., Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1382/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…alogy, the assessee relied upon the case of ITO v. Banarsilal Satyanarain (1995) 55 ITD 372 (Patna) which held that a return filed in response to a notice u/s.148 can be validly revised u/s.139(5). The assessee also relied on AClT Vs. Cavikare (P) Ltd (2009), 120 ITD 126 (Chennai) to suggest that Section 139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, ho…

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1136/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…alogy, the assessee relied upon the case of ITO v. Banarsilal Satyanarain (1995) 55 ITD 372 (Patna) which held that a return filed in response to a notice u/s.148 can be validly revised u/s.139(5). The assessee also relied on AClT Vs. Cavikare (P) Ltd (2009), 120 ITD 126 (Chennai) to suggest that Section 139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, ho…

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1135/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…alogy, the assessee relied upon the case of ITO v. Banarsilal Satyanarain (1995) 55 ITD 372 (Patna) which held that a return filed in response to a notice u/s.148 can be validly revised u/s.139(5). The assessee also relied on AClT Vs. Cavikare (P) Ltd (2009), 120 ITD 126 (Chennai) to suggest that Section 139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, ho…

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1134/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…alogy, the assessee relied upon the case of ITO v. Banarsilal Satyanarain (1995) 55 ITD 372 (Patna) which held that a return filed in response to a notice u/s.148 can be validly revised u/s.139(5). The assessee also relied on AClT Vs. Cavikare (P) Ltd (2009), 120 ITD 126 (Chennai) to suggest that Section 139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, ho…

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1133/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…alogy, the assessee relied upon the case of ITO v. Banarsilal Satyanarain (1995) 55 ITD 372 (Patna) which held that a return filed in response to a notice u/s.148 can be validly revised u/s.139(5). The assessee also relied on AClT Vs. Cavikare (P) Ltd (2009), 120 ITD 126 (Chennai) to suggest that Section 139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, ho…

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1132/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…alogy, the assessee relied upon the case of ITO v. Banarsilal Satyanarain (1995) 55 ITD 372 (Patna) which held that a return filed in response to a notice u/s.148 can be validly revised u/s.139(5). The assessee also relied on AClT Vs. Cavikare (P) Ltd (2009), 120 ITD 126 (Chennai) to suggest that Section 139(5) is partly substantive and partly procedural in nature and, therefore, the right given to the assessee under this sub-section should be extended to a return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 also, because even such returns can contain omissions that warrant correction. The Assessing Officer disagreed, ho…

AClT v. Cavikare (P) Ltd. (120 ITD 126) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax