How many judgments cite Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT?

56 judgments on BharatTax cite Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT (90 ITR 236), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 115BBE, Section 139, Section 69B, Section 69, Section 69A.

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.

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 115BBE Section 139 Section 69B Section 69 Section 69A Section 133A Section 139(5)

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT

The DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal vs. M/S. Indore Education and Service Society, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA 468/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit M/S. Indore Education & (Exemption) Service Society बनाम/ Bhopal 2Nd Floor, Income Tax Office Vs. Metro Walk Building E-5, Arera Colony Near Bittan Market Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaati3186K

Section 10Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

…n 335 (Guj) (ii) Raj rani Gulati CIT Central Tilak (2012) 346 ITR 543(All) (iii) S.R.Koshti V CIT 146 Taxman 335(Guj) (iv) K.P.Varghese V ITO 131 ITR 597 (v) UCO Bank V CIT 237 ITR 889 (v) CIT Bharat Aluminum Ltd 303 ITR 256 (Del) (vi) CIT V Dhampur Sugar Ltd 90 ITR 236 (All) (vii) Xerox India Ltd V DCIT New Delhi (ITA 158/2010) Further after relying on the validity of Circular No 14 dated 11.04.1955 as examined by Honourable Apex Court in the case of CIT V Makendm Mills reported in 234 ITR 56 in which the Honourable Court has examined the applicability of the above Circular in regime of 1961 Act. And it was opi…

Income Tax Officer- 5(1), Indore vs. M/S. Su-Sampada, Indore

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 504/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borada.Y. 2011-12

Section 139(5)Section 80I

…o not find any merit in the ground no.1 raised by the Revenue. Our view is fortified by the following case-laws: 1. CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Ltd., 303 ITR 256 (Del); 2. CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd., 172 Taxman 258 (Del); 3. CIT vs. Dhampur Sugar Ltd., 90 ITR 236 (All.); 4. Chicago Pneumatics India Ltd. vs. DCIt (15 SOT 252) (Mum); 5. Bharat Starch Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (URO) (ITA No.1611/K/2003); 6. Thomas Kurian vs. ACIT, 108 TTJ 439 (Cochin); and 7. Xerox India Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.1580/Del/2010) (URO). 6. So far as the second ground raised by the Revenue is concerned, the ld. Sr. DR relied upon the…

Shri Dinesh Mills Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle -2(1)(1), Baroda

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

ITA 781/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR &

Section 10Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 14ASection 154ASection 194HSection 40(1)(ia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ A ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No(s) Assessment Appeal(s) by Nos. Year (s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 781/Ahd/2016 2012-13 Shri Dinesh Mills Asst.CIT Ltd. Circle-2(1)(1) PB No.2501 Baroda 390 020 Padra Road Baroda 390 020 PAN: AADCS 3115 Q 2. 1191/Ahd/2013 2012-13 DCIT Assessee Cir 2(1) Baroda 3. 3369/Ahd/2016 2013-14 -do-Revenue Assessee 4. 3180/Ahd/2016 2013-14 Assessee ACIT Cir. 2(1) Baroda Assessee by : Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR Revenue by : Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-DR…

The ACIT, Ernakulam vs. M/S.Nitta Gelatine India Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 301/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

…ngs. 17. On appeal, the CIT(A) analysed the provisions of law in the light of the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. (284 ITR 323) , ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. (15 SOT 252), CIT vs. Dhampur Sugar Ltd. (90 ITR 236), Bombay High Court in the case of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336), ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of Thomas Kurian vs. ACIT (106 ITD 158), Solaris Bio Chemicals Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No.987/2011 dated 13/07/2012 (Delhi) and allowed the claim of the assessee. 18. Against this, the Revenue is in appeal before us. The Ld. DR r…

The ACIT, Cochin vs. M/S.Nitta Gelatine India Ltd, Cochin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 303/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 32Section 40A(3)

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

…g the return already filed by the assessee flowing from sub-section (5). No such language or intention flows from such provision. 7. The Allahabad High Court in case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Central reported in [1973] 90 ITR 236, in the context of the Income Tax Act, 1922 held that the assessee is given a right to file a correct and complete return if he discovers an error or omission in the return filed earlier. The assessment can be completed only on the basis of the correct and complete return. The earlier return, after a revised return has been filed, cannot form the…

ACIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Forbes & Co.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5536/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G S Pannu, Vice-And Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave (AR)For Respondent: Shri S C Tiwari (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 3Section 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G S PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENTAND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 5536/Mum/2011 Assessment Year: 2007-08 ACIT 1(1), M/s. Forbes & Co. Ltd., Mumbai. Forbes Building, Vs. Charnjit Singh Rai Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. PAN: AAACF1765A (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 5540/Mum/2011 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. Forbes & Co. Ltd., Dy. CIT OSD, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Mumbai. Vs. PAN: AAACF1765A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Girish Dave (AR) Respondent By : Shri S C Tiwari (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 01.07.2019 Date of Pronouncemen…

The DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal vs. M/S. Indore Education and Service Society, Indore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 63/IND/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 20

…If the rightful deduction or relief is not allowed to the assessee, the purpose and intention of the law will be defeated. Reliance is placed on the following case Laws. (i) CIT V Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd 172 Taxman 258 (Delhi) (ii) CIT V Dharampur Sugar Ltd 90 ITR 236 (All) (iii) Bharat starch Industries Ltd V CIT (ITA No 1611/k12003 7 (iv) Thomas Kurian V ACIT 108 TT J 439 (Cochin) (v) Xerox India Ltd V DC IT New Delhi (ITA No 1580/De1/2010) In the case of CIT v. Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. (1986) 160 ITR 920 SC, it was observed that: "There is a duty cast on the Income-tax Officer to apply the relevant pr…

Pirmal Finance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy, CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 981/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr. D.R

Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2012-13 Piramal Finance Pvt. Ltd. The DCIT, 4th Floor, Piramal Tower Circle-2(1)(2), Annexe, Ganpatrao Kadam Vs Aayakar Bhavan, Marg, Lower Parel, Vadodara-390007 Mumbai-400013 (Respondent) PAN: AAACG8457E (Appellant) Revenue by: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. Date of hearing : 04-12-2018 Date of pronouncement : 18-01-2019 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 20…

Hindustan Oil Exploration Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Cir 9(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 942/MUM/2015[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalhindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. Anand House, 13Th Road, Off Linking Rd. ……………. Appellant Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052 Pan – Aaach1407P V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Special Range–1, Mumbai Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. Anand House, 13Th Road, Off Linking Rd. ……………. Appellant Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052 Pan – Aaach1407P V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Circle–9(2)(1), Mumbai Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd. Anand House, 13Th Road, Off Linking Rd. ……………. Appellant Khar (W), Mumbai 400 052 Pan – Aaach1407P V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Range–9(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri V. ChandrashekharFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

Section 143(3)Section 42(1)(a)

…, the reasoning of the Departmental Authorities in rejecting the revised return of income filed by the assessee is against the mandate of law. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v/s CIT, [1972] 90 ITR 236 (All.); ii) CIT v/s Himgiri Foods Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 508 (Guj.); iii) CIT v/s Gold Tex Furnishing Industries, [2002] 276 ITR 164 (Del.); iv) CIT v/s P.R. Prabhakar, [2004] 276 ITR 176; v) Goetz India Ltd. v/s CIT, [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC); and vi) CIT v/s Pruthvi Brokers And Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 336 (Bom.). 22. Thus, the learn…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Amber Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5176/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri, Amarjit Singh Jm Acit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Amber Enterprises Mumbai – 400 051 7, Taren Compound Behind Krishna Hotel Dahisar (E) Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Aalfa3071G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80B(10)(f)Section 80FSection 80I

…t Report: The AO has pointed out that the appellant had not submitted the Audit Report in Form No.10 CCB alongwith the return of income. The appellant has referred to the decision in the case of Allahabad High 'Court in the case, of CIT vs. Dhampur Sugar Ltd. 90 ITR 236 which made a distinction between revised return and a correction in return. It is held that if the assessee files some application for correcting a return already filed or making amends therein, it would not mean that he has filed a revised return. It will retain the character of an original return. But once the revised return is filed, the origin…

Yes & Yes Hitech Premier Homes India Private Limited, Erode vs. ITO, Erode

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is stands dismissed

ITA 22/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Mr.Narendra Kumar Naik, JCIT

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)

…t is return filed ultimately by the ITA No.22/Mds/2016 & CO No.56/Mds/2016 (in ITA No.351/Mds/2016) ITA Nos.351 & 3192/Mds/2016 :- 8 -: assesseee on basis of which he wants his income to be assesseed. (Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (90 ITR 236 (Allahabad). 2. In connection with the original return filed on 29-09-2013, no notice under section 143 (2) has served. Service of notice under section 143 (2) is mandatory for completing assessment under section 143(3). The Apex Court has decided in ACIT vs Hotel Ble Moon (321 ITR 362) (SC) that issue of notice under section 143 (2) is mandatory…

The Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) vs. M/s Vanenberg Facilites BV

ITTA/71/2014HC Telangana16 Jun 2017

Bench: U.DURGA PRASAD RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata vs. M/S Mackintosh Burn Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 790/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Anup Sinha, Advocate

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80I

…have taken cognizance of the valid revised return that was very much available before him while framing assessment. In this regard, he placed reliance on 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 the question raised before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court was whether, original return would continue to form the basis for the purpose of assessment even after it was substituted by a revised return. The Hon’ble High Court held that “when an assessment has to be made the assessee is given a right to file a correct and complete re…

DCIT 15(3), Mumbai vs. Kamdhenu Builders and Developers, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7010/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7010/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit 15(3) Vs. Kamdhenu Builders & Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Developers Tardeo Road, 20 Shanti Centre, Sector 17, Mumbai Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 705 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfk 0461 E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (Dr) ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : (I) Shri Sunil Pathak (Ar) (Ii)Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi(Ar) सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2007-08, In The Matter U/S.143(3)(Ii) Of The I.T. Act, Wherein The Following Three Grounds Taken Of The Assessee. (I) “On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Is Entitled To Deduction U/S 80Ib (10) Of Rs.1,94,12,489/- Inspite Of The Fact That The Claim For Deduction Was Not Made In The Original Return & Was Only Made In The Return Filed, For A.Y. 2007-08, On 31.08.2009, Which Is Not A Valid Return In The Eye Of Law & Also Cannot Be Treated As „Revised Return‟ U/S. 139(5).” (Ii) “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Deduction U/S 80Ib (10) Of Rs.1,94,12,489/-, As The Same Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 80A(5), Effective From 01.04.2003, Which Does Not Permit Allowance Of Deduction Unless The Claim For Deduction Is Made In The Return Of Income.”

For Appellant: (i) Shri Sunil Pathak (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (DR)

Section 10Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 80A(5)Section 80I

…urn of income is essential for removal of defects of original return. It obviously corrects short comings from which it suffered. The revised return must therefore, be considered as it was originally filed vide Thakur Dharmapur Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1973) 90 ITR 236, 239 & 240 (Allahabad) and Gopaldas Parshottamdas vs. CIT (1941) 9 ITR 130 (All.). It is important to point out that when a revised return cures the defects in the original return and does not obliterate the later, the assessment means on the basis of original return of income ignoring the revised return is liable to be set aside vide CIT vs. Chit…

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Saravana Developers

In the result, the revisions are allowed

ITA/68/2014HC Karnataka21 Jan 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

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…