CIT vs. Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., 191 ITR 156 (Kar.), (ii) CCIT v. Machine Tool Corpn. of India Ltd.

201 ITR 101High Court1993#8280 most cited

What is CIT vs. Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., 191 ITR 156 (Kar.), (ii) CCIT v. Machine Tool Corpn. of India Ltd. authority for?

A revised return filed under section 139(5) substitutes the original return, rendering the original return obsolete for assessment purposes. Any claims or entries in the original return cannot be relied upon after being withdrawn or modified in a revised return.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CCIT v. Machine Tool Corpn. of India Ltd. · section 139(5) · revised return · substitution of original return · assessment based on revised return · withdrawal of claim

Sections most often in play

Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

Judgments citing CIT vs. Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., 191 ITR 156 (Kar.), (ii) CCIT v. Machine Tool Corpn. of India Ltd.

Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong

The appeal is partly allowed as above

ITA/1/2023HC Tripura14 Aug 2025

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…d not be used for any purpose. It is, therefore, not open to the Income Tax Officer to advert to the original return or statement filed along with it for the purpose of allowing 3 (2000) 3 SCC 615 4 (1993) 201 ITR 101 (Karnataka) Page 9 of 10 deductions after such claim was expressly withdrawn under the revised return.” 35. In our view, the Assessing Officer committed a clear illegality by ignoring the revised return, and the Tribunal got misled by noting the date of filing of the revised return incorrectly, and came to the perverse conclusio…

M/S.Bodygear International P. Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The DCIT, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 274/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Omanakuttan, Senior AR
Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member & Shri Soundararajan K, Judicial Member ITA No.274/Coch/2023 :Asst.Year 2007-2008 Bodygear International Pvt.Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner V/803, A and B, Edayar v. of Income-tax, Cir.1(2) Industrial Development Area Kochi. Muppthadam PO Alangad, Ernakulam – 683 110. PAN : AAACB9545J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Radhesh Bhatt, CA Respondent by : Sri.Omanakuttan, Senior AR Date of Date of Hearing : 20.03.2025 Pronouncement : 14.05.2025 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, AM : This is an appeal fil…

M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.273/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/s. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, ICC Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. PAN : AABCB2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.334/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Bilcare Limited, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 6th Floor, B Wing, ICC 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. PAN : AABCB2242F Appellant Respondent C.O. No…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta
Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.273/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/s. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, ICC Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. PAN : AABCB2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.334/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Bilcare Limited, Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 6th Floor, B Wing, ICC 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. PAN : AABCB2242F Appellant Respondent C.O. No…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - Udaipur, Agartala vs. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Agartala

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 297/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…the revised return has to be taken into account for the purposes of making the assessment. This point of view had been held in the following cases:- (i) CIT –vs.- Rana Polycot Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 466 (P&H); (ii) CCIT –vs.- Machine Tools Corpn. Of India (1993) 201 ITR 101 (Karnataka); 4 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (iii) Beco Engineering Co. Ltd. –vs. VIT (1984) 148 ITR 478 (P&H); (iv) CIT –vs.- Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd.(1991) 191 ITR 156 (Karnataka). In the case of Pr. CIT-1-vs.- Babubghai Ramanbhai Patel (2017) 84 taxmann.com 32 (Guj), it was held that…

M/S. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 147/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

…, Bangalore Page 11 of 29 11 was computed after setting off losses of other units. This was rectified in the revised return and filed within 139(5) timelines. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CCIT (Admn) v Machine Tools Corporation of India Limited [1993] 201 ITR 101 (Kar) has held that once a revised return is filed, it substitutes original return. The original return had been filed within the due date as per section 139(1) of the Act. The claim of deduction under section 10AA of the Act in the revised return of income is therefore correct and cannot be denied on this ground. Regarding non-compliance with th…

M/S Mersen India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2184/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaim/S. Mersen India Pvt. Ltd., No.5, Bommasandra Indl. Area, Anekal Taluk, Hosur Road, Bangalore-560 099 Pan Aaace 3191K ….Appellant Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Smt. R. Premi, Jcit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

…, the original return is substituted by Revised Return consequently the assessment framed according to the Revised Return only. For this purpose he relied on the decision in the case of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Machine Tools Corporation India Ltd. 201 ITR 101 (Kar). He also relied on the judgement of CIT 7 Vs. Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. 191 ITR 256 and Dharmpur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 90 ITR 236 (Allahabad) and CIT Vs. UPR NN Limited 36 Taxman.com 96. The ld. AR also relied on UPRNN Ltd. Vs. ITO 24 SOT 139 where the assessee filed Revised Return on the basis of audited accounts. The depr…

M/S Opto Circuits India Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1044/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. B.S.Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Manjeet Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153C

…return of income filed u/s 139(1) would get substituted and effaced when the return is revised u/s 139(5) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the following decisions of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court: (1) M/s Machine Tool Corporation of India Ltd (1993) 201 ITR 101 (Kar) — The Hon'ble High Court Held that once a revised return u/s 139(5) filed, the original return is substituted by the revised return. Consequently, the entries in the relevant column of the original return seeking depreciation, cannot be used for any purpose. It is therefore, not open for the ITO to advert to the original returns or the stat…

M/S. Subham, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(4), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 402/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…he original return u/s 139(1) of the Act cannot be taken into account for making the assessment, he relied on the following decisions : a) CIT Vs. Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. [191 ITR 156 (Kar)] b) CCIT Vs. Machine Tool Corporation of India Ltd. [201 ITR 101 (Kar)]. c) Beco Engineering Co. Ltd Vs. CIT [148 ITR 478 (P&H)] d) CIT Vs. Arun Textile [192 ITR 700 (Guj)]. He therefore submitted that the assessment of total income by the AO by rejecting the revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act was contrary to law. He therefore prayed that the total income of Rs.5,50,520/- declared by the assessee in the r…

Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4592/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…since it has been decided by the trustee to retain the income of the trust, it cannot be said that such income is being received by the assessee.” While deciding Gondal’s case Gujarat High Court made the following observations with respect of Kamalini Khatau 201 ITR 101 (SC): “In CIT v. Kamalini Khatau (1994) 209 ITR 101(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 166 is clarificatory. It does not empower any assessment or recovery by itself. It only makes it clear that Sections 160 - 165 do not bar the direct assessment of the person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the income is receivable or the…

Dwarka Prasad Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…since it has been decided by the trustee to retain the income of the trust, it cannot be said that such income is being received by the assessee.” While deciding Gondal’s case Gujarat High Court made the following observations with respect of Kamalini Khatau 201 ITR 101 (SC): “In CIT v. Kamalini Khatau (1994) 209 ITR 101(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 166 is clarificatory. It does not empower any assessment or recovery by itself. It only makes it clear that Sections 160 - 165 do not bar the direct assessment of the person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the income is receivable or the…

ACIT 21(2), Mumbai vs. Kiran Aggarwal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1055/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…since it has been decided by the trustee to retain the income of the trust, it cannot be said that such income is being received by the assessee.” While deciding Gondal’s case Gujarat High Court made the following observations with respect of Kamalini Khatau 201 ITR 101 (SC): “In CIT v. Kamalini Khatau (1994) 209 ITR 101(SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 166 is clarificatory. It does not empower any assessment or recovery by itself. It only makes it clear that Sections 160 - 165 do not bar the direct assessment of the person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the income is receivable or the…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mahendra Mills

The appeal is dismissed

C.A. No.-005394-005394 - 1994Supreme Court15 Mar 2000
For Respondent: MAHENDRA MILLS
Section 32Section 34Section 72Section 73

…med or not, the statutory requirement of making the claim along with necessary particulars and the provision for "allowing" it would be unnecessary." In Chief CIT (Administration) vs. Machine Tool Corporation of India Ltd. [(1993) 201 ITR 101 (Kar.)] the assessee filed revised return whereby it withdrew its claim regarding depreciation in the original return. Income- tax Officer, however, allowed depreciation as per details furnished in the original return. High Court noticed the divergence of opinion among the High Courts on the question and also referred to a circ…