CIT v. Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.

266 ITR 705High Court2004#6146 most cited
19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also reported as

137 Taxmann 364

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 139Section 69ASection 69BSection 69Section 153ASection 129

Issues it is cited on

section 153a(b)section 2(45)true and full disclosuresection 10(1)settlement applicationsurrender of incomesection 129section 139(5)section 271bsection 271aabsection 271aacsection 69b

Judgments citing CIT v. Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

ITA 974/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194A

…evised return is filed, the\noriginal return must be taken to have been withdrawn and substituted by a\nfresh return for the purpose of assessment.\n7. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Periyar District Co-operative Milk\nProducers Union Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 705/137 Taxman 364 held that once the\nassessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of\nSection 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We\nare conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation.\n8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the view of the\…

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

ITA 973/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194A

…evised return is filed, the\noriginal return must be taken to have been withdrawn and substituted by a\nfresh return for the purpose of assessment.\n7. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Periyar District Co-operative Milk\nProducers Union Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 705/137 Taxman 364 held that once the\nassessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of\nSection 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We\nare conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation.\n8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the view of the\…

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

ITA 1454/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…evised return is filed, the\noriginal return must be taken to have been withdrawn and substituted by a fresh\nreturn for the purpose of assessment.\n7. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Periyar District Co-operative Milk\nProducers Union Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 705/137 Taxman 364 held that once the\nassessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of\nSection 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are\nconscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation.\n8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the view of the\…

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…a revised return is filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of assessment. 7. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 705/137 Taxman 364 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the view of the Appe…

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 406/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271A

…a revised return is filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of assessment. 7. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 705/137 Taxman 364 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the view of the Appe…

GEETA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WD 1(4), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…a revised return is filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of assessment. 7. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 705/137 Taxman 364 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the view of the Appe…

SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2024[2005-06]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…a revised return is filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of assessment. 7. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 705/137 Taxman 364 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the view of the Appe…

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

ITA 936/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…a revised return is filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of assessment. 7. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 705/137 Taxman 364 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not fi…

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

ITA 935/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…a revised return is filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of assessment. 7. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 705/137 Taxman 364 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not fi…

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

ITA 934/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…a revised return is filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of assessment. 7. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 705/137 Taxman 364 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not fi…

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

ITA 933/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…a revised return is filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of assessment. 7. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 705/137 Taxman 364 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not fi…

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

ITA 932/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…a revised return is filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of assessment. 7. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 705/137 Taxman 364 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not fi…

SH. DHEERAJ SINGH SISODIYA,KOTA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the ground no

ITA 931/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.931 to 936/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15 to 2018-19 Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya 005, (Nayagaun) Ram Ganmandi, Kota बनाम DCIT, Vill. Beedmandi Vs. Central Circle, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: APAPS 6392 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam,

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…a revised return is filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of assessment. 7. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. [2004] 266 ITR 705/137 Taxman 364 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. DCIT Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 8. In view of the above discussion, we do not fi…

DCIT, CIRCLE-II(I) vs. I.F.C.I. LTD.,,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2205/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 139Section 142Section 143

…e tax act can be revised and return filed u/s 139 (3) of the act cannot be revised. The learned CIT – A relying on the decision of Honourable madras High Court in case of Commissioner of income tax versus Periyar District cooperative Milk producers union Ltd (266 ITR 705) considered the revised return of the assessee. Therefore, revenue aggrieved with that order is in appeal before us. Page 19 of 29 22. The learned departmental representative relied upon the orders of the learned assessing officer and stated that the ROI filed u/s 139 (3) cannot be revised. For revision of the return assessee has to file the re…

IFCI LTD. vs. ADDL. CIT, CIRCLE-11(1),,

In the result ITA number 2205/Del/2005 filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2120/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2020AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 139Section 142Section 143

…e tax act can be revised and return filed u/s 139 (3) of the act cannot be revised. The learned CIT – A relying on the decision of Honourable madras High Court in case of Commissioner of income tax versus Periyar District cooperative Milk producers union Ltd (266 ITR 705) considered the revised return of the assessee. Therefore, revenue aggrieved with that order is in appeal before us. Page 19 of 29 22. The learned departmental representative relied upon the orders of the learned assessing officer and stated that the ROI filed u/s 139 (3) cannot be revised. For revision of the return assessee has to file the re…

BANYAN SUSTAINABLE WASTE MANAGAMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 362/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Banyan Sustainable Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Waste Management Pvt Income Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle-1, Pan: Aafcb 5861 L Warangal. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Gopichand Bhattaram Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/06/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Sri Gopichand BhattaramFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 13Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

…tronics Development Corporation Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA No. 485/Coch/2010, vide order dated 29/03/2012 wherein they had followed the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited (2004) 266 ITR 705 (Mad.) and various other higher Judiciaries. The Ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the Ld. AR. 5. After hearing both sides, we find merit in the submission of the Ld. AR. On an identical circumstance, the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal had set-aside the order of the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT (A) and directed the Ld. AO to process the r…

THE DHARANGADHRA PEOPLE'S CO. OP. BANK LTD.,,DHRANGADHRA vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.130-131/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ The Dharangadhra People’S D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Kalpvarksh, Mandvi Chowk, Surendranagar. Dhrangadhara, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat1192R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 20/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 01/02/2017, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 16/02/2015 & 27/11/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.S) 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139(3)Section 139(4)Section 80

…sment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier.” 7.5 We also find support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT versus Periyar District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. reported in 266 ITR 705 wherein it was held as under: 7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid two provisions, more particularly the provision contained in section 139(3), makes it clear that a return of loss filed under section 139(3) may be filed within the time allowed under section 139(1). Once such a return is filed, all the provisions of the Income-tax Act shall apply a…

B E BILLIMORIA & CO LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT , CITY -1, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2711/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. ModyFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 80

…r under section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment order. In support of his contention, learned Authorised Representative relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v/s Periyar District Co–operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., [2004] 266 ITR 705 (Mad.) and the decision of the Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, in Gilbarco Veeder Root India Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.2695/Mum./2017, dated 7th September 2018. 4. The learned Departmental Representative drawing our attention to the assessment order submitted, the assessment order does not 6 B.E. Billimoria & Co. Ltd. reveal even a semblance of enquiry…

SARAVJIT BHATIA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-11(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6695/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2015-16 Sarvajit Bhatia Income Tax Officer A-362, Dabua Colony, Pali Vs Ward – 11 (3) Road, Faridabad Faridabad Pan No.Akmpb4292K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 143Section 68

…ginal return must be taken to have been withdrawn and substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of assessment. 8. The Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Periyar District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. reported in [2094] 266 ITR 705 held that once the assessee had filed a return claiming carry forward loss under sub-section (3) of Section 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We are conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation. 9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the view of the Appellate Tribunal.…