Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra v. CIT

134 ITR 352High Court1982#16662 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 11 Section 12A Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)(ii)

Judgments citing Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra v. CIT

Maharashtra Council of Homoeopathy, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 96/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, AR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…eturn under section 139(5) revising the original return filed within the due date under section 139(1) then the revised return substitutes the original return as has been held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra v. CIT (134 ITR 352 ). For the year under consideration the assessee has filed Form-10 on 31.07.2020 i.e. before filing the revised return of income. As already mentioned, since the revised return replaces the original return of income the Form-10 filed before the filing of revised return ought to be considered as filed before the due date for filing the return of i…

Maharashtra Council of Homoeopathy, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 95/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, AR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

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)

…e misconstrued by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) held that since the revised return replaced the original return, it had the same effect as the original one. Relying on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra v. CIT 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 t…

Shri Subhash Chand Agarwal, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-2, Kota

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 336/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. B. V. Maheshwari (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 139(4)Section 80C

…declared the loss. Thus the return was revised to bring to tax the actual income. It has been decided by the Allahabad High Court that there is no bar in filling a belated or revised return as long as no assessment intervened — Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra (All) 134 ITR 352 (1982). 3. It was further submitted that once a revised return is filed, the original return couldn't be adverted to at all as was decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of depreciation claim following the decision of Beco Engg Co. Ltd. v/s. CIT (1984) 148 ITR 478 (P & H) this is followed in other decision in the case of CIT v/s Ma…

M/S. Claris Lifesciences Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, (OSD) Range-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 498/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G D Agarwal, Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadav] Assessment Year: 2008-09 Claris Life Sciences Limited ................................Appellant Corporate Towers, Near Parimal Crossing Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad 380006 [Pan: Aaacc6366Q] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) Range 1, Ahmedabad …..……..….….....Respondent

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 140ASection 221Section 221(1)

…or that purpose”. Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 5 of 11 Learned counsel also points out that, in holding so, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has followed the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Niranjan Lal Ram Chandra vs. CIT [(1982) 134 ITR 352 (All)], wherein it was observed that “once a revised return has been filed under s. 139(5), the original return is substituted by the revised return as a result of the amendments made in the original return by the revised return” and that “consequently, the IT authorities could not take into consideration the original returns for the assessment o…