What is Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. CIT authority for?

A revised return cannot be used to rectify a deliberate omission or wilful mistake made in the original return.

How many judgments cite Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. CIT?

23 judgments on BharatTax cite Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. CIT (220 ITR 67), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10AA, Section 115BA, Section 115BAA, Section 115BAB, Section 139(1), Section 139(5).

Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. CIT (220 ITR 67)

Satara Engineering Projects and Equipments Private Limited, Satara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Satara

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

ITA 2450/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

…ishing Form 10-ID within that time, the later revised return is only a curative step. Courts have consistently held that a revised return relates back to the original return (Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT 90 ITR 236 (All); Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. CIT 220 ITR 67 (SC)). Even if the revised return falls after the 139(1) due date, that does not make the exercise of option "belated," because: • The option was already exercised validly in the original return and Form 10-ID. • The revised return does not create a fresh option; it merely corrects/updates acknowledgement details. • CBDT Circular No. 29/2019 (on S…

M/S Supreme Treon Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cenralized Processing Centre., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2219/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 44ASection 80Section 80ASection 80I

…mpugned order that the AO is justified in not accepting the return filed later on 29/03/2017 has no basis. In any case, as regards the reliance placed by the learned CIT(A) upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v/s CIT, 220 ITR 67 (SC), since the original return filed by the assessee has been found to be valid return under section 139(1) of the Act, therefore the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. Further, as the return of income filed by the assessee on 29/11/2015 has been found to have been filed on or before the due date specified unde…

Rajesh Aggarwal, Dehradun vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Central Circle, Dehradun

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/DDN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

…uential issue that emerges for consideration is as to whether such belated returns could be revised or not. This issue is no longer res integra in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha Vs. CIT, reported in 220 ITR 67 (SC). 13. The issue of maximum time limit granted by learned AO in the notices issued under section 153A of the Act to file the return is to be construed as due date under section 139(1) of the Act, has been duly addressed by the Coordinate Bench decision of Chennai Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. V.N. Devadoss, in ITA No.1219 & 1221/Mad/2012,…

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)

…and not deliberate or willful. Such claim of loss in the revised return without showing inadvertence even at the stage of second appeal thus has been rightly denied. 14.2 A reference to the judgment rendered in the case of Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha vs. CIT 220 ITR 67(SC) is quite apt to the facts of the case where was held that revised return can not be filed to cover up deliberate omission etc. in the original return. Thus, from this perspective also, phraseology of S. 139(5) does not permit claim of capital loss by way of a revised return. The claim of the Assessee towards incurring impugned capital losss an…