Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT

90 ITR 236High Court1973#2045 most cited

What is Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

When a valid revised return is filed under Section 139(5), it replaces the original return, and the assessment must be completed based on the correct and complete information provided in the revised return, not the original.

56

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT · Section 139(5) · revised return · original return · assessment basis · substitution of return · true and full disclosure · error or omission · Income Tax Act 1922 · Section 139 · Section 143(3) · correct and complete return

Also reported as

51 Taxmann.com 508

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 139Section 69BSection 69Section 69ASection 133ASection 139(5)

Issues it is cited on

section 153a(b)section 139(3)section 144(1)principal director general of income-taxsection 2(45)section 139(5)true and full disclosuresection 10(1)settlement applicationsection 80a(5)section 24(a)surrender of income

Judgments citing Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1879/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

…1 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”,MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 (Assessment year : 2014-15 to 2017-18 & 2019-20) M/s Atul Projects India Private vs DCIT-9(1)(2) (Now Jurisdiction with Limited, 5th Floor, Trade Avenue DC CC (2)(4), Mumbai Andheri East, Suren Road Chakala, Mumbai-400 093 PAN : AAGCA5921P ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Shri Naresh Jain & Akshay Jain Present for the Depa…

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mimbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1877/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

…1 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”,MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 (Assessment year : 2014-15 to 2017-18 & 2019-20) M/s Atul Projects India Private vs DCIT-9(1)(2) (Now Jurisdiction with Limited, 5th Floor, Trade Avenue DC CC (2)(4), Mumbai Andheri East, Suren Road Chakala, Mumbai-400 093 PAN : AAGCA5921P ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Shri Naresh Jain & Akshay Jain Present for the Depa…

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1876/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

…1 I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 M/s Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”,MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.1940,1876,1877, 1879 & 1880 / Mum/2023 (Assessment year : 2014-15 to 2017-18 & 2019-20) M/s Atul Projects India Private vs DCIT-9(1)(2) (Now Jurisdiction with Limited, 5th Floor, Trade Avenue DC CC (2)(4), Mumbai Andheri East, Suren Road Chakala, Mumbai-400 093 PAN : AAGCA5921P ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Present for the Assessee Shri Naresh Jain & Akshay Jain Present for the Depa…

M.P.Re-Cycling Co. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 488/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017
Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…of Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, wherein this court has placed reliance upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in case of Dhampur Sugar Mills v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 236, wherein it has been held that there is a clear distinction between revised return and a correction of return. Once 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. Thus, when a revised return is filed under section 139(5) of the Act, the original r…

Rrpr Holding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Grounds No

ITA 4700/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT-DR
Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…d as Long Term Capital Loss is not hit by the embargo placed under Section 80 of the Act. The ld. counsel relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel (2017) 84 taxman.com 32 (Guj.); Dharampur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, 90 ITR 236 (Alld) and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench rendered in Ramesh R. Shah Vs. ACIT, ITA No.4312/MUM/2009 order dated 29.07.2011 to buttress the aforesaid proposition. The ld. Counsel thus submitted that the denial of carry forward of losses claimed in the revised return is opposed to the scheme of the Act as interpreted by the judicial dicta and…

ACIT Circle-2 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Deutsche Asset Management (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7227/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 139(5)

…as revised by the assessee on bonafide reason. Accordingly, following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) P Ltd (2006)(157 Taxman 1) and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharmpur Sugar Ltd (1973)(90 ITR 236), the Ld CIT(A) held that the revised return of income filed by the assessee within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act is a valid return. He also accepted the claim for deduction of unamortized brokerage expenses, since the business has been discontinued. Aggrieved, the revenue has filed this appeal. 6. We heard the parties on this i…

Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 76/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack15 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Paradeep Paradeep Phosphates Phosphates Vs. Pcit, Bhubaneswar Pcit, Bhubaneswar-1 Limited, 5Th Th Floor, Bayan Bhawan, J.N.Road, Kharvel Bhawan, J.N.Road, Kharvel Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ca B.K.Mahapatra, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/0 02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/0 /02/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35A

…as the submission that the assessee is in appeal against the said consequential order before the ld CIT(A). 4. In reply, ld CIT DR submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd vs CIT (1973) 90 ITR 236 (All), wherein, it has been held that when a revised return has been filed, the effective return for the purpose of assessment is revised return and the original return stands effaced, the assessee though entitled to the claim of deduction u/s.32AC and the additional depreciation, could not be granted the same, as the assessee has not claimed dedu…

Sri Kambegowda Puttanarasappa, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 456/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Avinash Mallya, Advocate and Sri.Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA No.456/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2017-2018 Sri.Kambegowda Puttanarasappa The Principal Commissioner of 1776, 8th Cross, 6th Main, Income-tax v. Kampinagar, Vijayanagar, 2nd Bangalore. Stage, Bangalore – 560 040. PAN : AFXPP4415L. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Avinash Mallya, Advocate and Sri.Hemant Pai, CA Respondent by : Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 20.10.2022 Date of Hearing : 19.10.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, JM : This appeal at the insta…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. Kishor Shankar Garve, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 2286/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: S/Shri J.P. Chandraker & M.G. Jasnani
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…filed, the original return of income must be taken to be withdrawn and substituted by the revised return. In this connection reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 90 ITR 236 (Allahabad), Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kunal Structure (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT reported in 422 ITR 482 (Gujarat) and the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 422 ITR 478 (Bombay). If we are, to accept the contention of assessee that the revised return was not filed o…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. Kishor Shankar Garve, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 1869/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: S/Shri J.P. Chandraker & M.G. Jasnani
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80I

…filed, the original return of income must be taken to be withdrawn and substituted by the revised return. In this connection reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 90 ITR 236 (Allahabad), Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kunal Structure (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT reported in 422 ITR 482 (Gujarat) and the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 422 ITR 478 (Bombay). If we are, to accept the contention of assessee that the revised return was not filed o…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(2), Hyderabad vs. Zen Technologies Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 1876/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2014-15 The Dy.Cit Vs. M/S Zen Technologies Ltd. Circle 17(2) B-42, Industrial Estate Hyderabad Sanath Nagar Hyderabad – 500 018 [Pan: Aaacz0677K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Kiran Katta, Dr Assessee By: Shri Mohd. Afzal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, DRFor Respondent: Sri Kiran Katta, DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 35(2)(AB)

…134 ITR 352 , the CIT(A) came to the conclusion that necessary conditions for carry forward of loss in this case were satisfied. Reliance was also placed by the CIT(A) on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT 90 ITR 236 in support of his decision. 4. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal. It is not in dispute that the assessee had filed the original return within the time prescribed under section 139(1). Section 139(5) permits an assessee to file a revised return if he discovers any omission or any wrong statement or mistake in the original return filed. If the fil…

Guru Tegbahadur Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 26 (1)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3947/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3946 /मुं/2019("न.व.2014-15) Raj Tarang 1 Housing Society, Shiv Vallabh Cross Road, Ashokvan, Rawalpada, Dahisar East, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai 400 068. Pan:Aaaar-6740-H बनाम/ Vs.

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi/
Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 2. National Thermal Power Company Ltd.Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) 3. CIT vs.Pruthvi Brokers & Share Holders, 349 ITR 336(Bom) 4. CIT vs. Dhampur Sugar Ltd. 90 ITR 236 (All) 5. Solaris Bio-Chemicals vs. DCIT, TS-5929-ITAT-2012(Del) 4.2 On merits of allowability of assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income earned from Co-operative bank, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the 5 ITA NO. 3946 & 3947/MUM/2019(A.Y.2014-15) Tribunal…

Raj Tarang Housing Society, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 32(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3946/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3946 /मुं/2019("न.व.2014-15) Raj Tarang 1 Housing Society, Shiv Vallabh Cross Road, Ashokvan, Rawalpada, Dahisar East, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai 400 068. Pan:Aaaar-6740-H बनाम/ Vs.

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi/
Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

…of the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, 284 ITR 323 2. National Thermal Power Company Ltd.Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) 3. CIT vs.Pruthvi Brokers & Share Holders, 349 ITR 336(Bom) 4. CIT vs. Dhampur Sugar Ltd. 90 ITR 236 (All) 5. Solaris Bio-Chemicals vs. DCIT, TS-5929-ITAT-2012(Del) 4.2 On merits of allowability of assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest income earned from Co-operative bank, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the 5 ITA NO. 3946 & 3947/MUM/2019(A.Y.2014-15) Tribunal…

Rite Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5849/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rite Developers, Dcit-13(3)(1), Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, S.S. House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Csl, Opp. Adarsh Petrol Pump, Mumbai-400020. Nehru Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aaccr 2173 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Satish Mody, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Bharat Andhale, DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…of the original return which has to be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under sub-section (2) of section 143 of the Act and not the date on which the defects actually came to be removed. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 236 (All) relied on. Held accordingly, that the assessee filed its return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 on 10th September, 2016. Since the return was defective, the assessee was called upon to remove such defects, which came to be removed on 7th July, 2017, that is, within the time allowed by the A.O. Therefore, upon such defects bei…

Wipro Limited vs. The State of Karnataka

In the result, the revisions are allowed

STRP/68/2014HC Karnataka07 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 22(1)Section 23(1)

…EE CABLES (INIDA) LIMITED, BANGALORE VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, 9 TRANSITION-33 AND RECOVERY DIVISIONS I AND III, BANGALORE,L (2008) 65 KAR. L.J. 161(HC), and 'DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', 90 ITR 236 (All). 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the Act as stood then did not have a provision for filing revised return and therefore, the applications for rectifications filed by the petitioner could not have been entertained as the same would amount to indirectly revising the return in the ab…

Wipro Limited vs. The State of Karnataka

In the result, the revisions are allowed

STRP/70/2014HC Karnataka07 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 22(1)Section 23(1)

…EE CABLES (INIDA) LIMITED, BANGALORE VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, 9 TRANSITION-33 AND RECOVERY DIVISIONS I AND III, BANGALORE,L (2008) 65 KAR. L.J. 161(HC), and 'DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', 90 ITR 236 (All). 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the Act as stood then did not have a provision for filing revised return and therefore, the applications for rectifications filed by the petitioner could not have been entertained as the same would amount to indirectly revising the return in the ab…

M/S. Sindhu Cargo Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1776/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh S Gaddi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT (DR)
Section 1Section 133(6)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…v. Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the learned senior standing counsel for the respondents, wherein this court has placed reliance upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in case of Dhampur Sugar Mills v. CIT, [1973] 90 ITR 236, wherein it has been held that there is a clear distinction between revised return and a correction of return. Once 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. Thus, when a revised return is filed Page 7 of 10 under section 139(5) of the Act,…

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

…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 depreciation cannot relied on the original return which is based on unaudited books of accounts and Assessing Officer shall consider the Revised Return of inc…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Endeka Ceramics Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the revisions are allowed

ITA/69/2014HC Karnataka09 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 22(1)Section 23(1)

…EE CABLES (INIDA) LIMITED, BANGALORE VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, 9 TRANSITION-33 AND RECOVERY DIVISIONS I AND III, BANGALORE,L (2008) 65 KAR. L.J. 161(HC), and 'DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX', 90 ITR 236 (All). 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that the Act as stood then did not have a provision for filing revised return and therefore, the applications for rectifications filed by the petitioner could not have been entertained as the same would amount to indirectly revising the return in the ab…

Sh. Mohamad Yaqoob Khan, Kashmir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Anantnag, Anantnag

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 436/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 436/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhagat (DR)
Section 139(5)Section 145(3)

…wherein it was submitted that the AO rejected the books of account without giving any reason to reject the same and considering that facts in the original return. It was submitted that Allahabad High Court in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 236 (All) and ITAT Mumbai in the case of IVF Holdings (P) Ltd. Mumbai v. Department of Income Tax has observed that the revised return have been filed as per the terms of the provisions of section 139(5), then the original return shall be treated as withdrawn. Without prejudice it was further submitted that the AO has not referred the peculiar facts t…