What is Sanchit Software and Solutions (P) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A mistake in the income return where the assessee omitted to exclude certain income can be rectified by the Commissioner, and revision should not be denied based on such an omission.

How many judgments cite Sanchit Software and Solutions (P) Ltd. v. CIT?

37 judgments on BharatTax cite Sanchit Software and Solutions (P) Ltd. v. CIT (349 ITR 404), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sanchit Software and Solutions (P) Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 11, Section 11(1), Section 143(1), Section 148, Section 11(2), Section 12A.

Sanchit Software and Solutions (P) Ltd. v. CIT (349 ITR 404)

MR POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 234/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

…rmal Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) ii) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 (SC) iii) CIT vs. M/s. Abhinitha Foundation Pvt Ltd. vide ITA No.811 of 2016 dated 06.06.2017 iv) Sanchit Software & Solutions (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2021) 349 ITR 404 (Bom) 16. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd reported in 66 ITR 710 (SC) and the decision of 10 Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ciba of India Ltd vs. CIT reported in 70 Taxman 505 (Bom), he submitted that the assessee can raise an alternate plea / ground before the Trib…

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-WARD-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

ITA 6558/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151A

…ported in [2009] 311 ITR 177 (Kerala) • Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani vs. DGIT reported in [2010] 323 ITR 223 (Bom)(HC) • Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanchit Software & Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2012] 349 ITR 404 (Bom)(HC) 4. For assessment year 2018-19, the Ld. Counsel submitted that, Form 10 was not filed before any of the authorities below and is filed for the first time before this Tribunal, and assessee has sought admission of the said document by way of additional ground and also has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the said form. 4.1. In…

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

ITA 6557/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151A

…ported in [2009] 311 ITR 177 (Kerala) • Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sitaldas K. Motwani vs. DGIT reported in [2010] 323 ITR 223 (Bom)(HC) • Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanchit Software & Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in [2012] 349 ITR 404 (Bom)(HC) 4. For assessment year 2018-19, the Ld. Counsel submitted that, Form 10 was not filed before any of the authorities below and is filed for the first time before this Tribunal, and assessee has sought admission of the said document by way of additional ground and also has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the said form. 4.1. In…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE,PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY & HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 825/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Piyush BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake

Section 10Section 10(46)Section 143(1)

…e Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand while supporting the order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) drew the attention of the Bench to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanchit Software & Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2012) 349 ITR 404 (Bom). He submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where in return of income the assessee had sought to exclude its dividend income and long term capital gains 7 CO No.19/PUN/2025 from sale of shares u/s 10 but by mistake, omitted to exclude them, Commissioner should rectify the return and revision could not be d…

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 147Section 250

…hn Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 170\nTaxman 304/305 ITR 103 (SC) (para 3), Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman\n1/284 ITR 323 (SC) (para 3), Sanchit Software & Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 25\ntaxmann.com 123/210 Taxman 539/349 ITR 404 (Bom.) (para 6)\n8. Invalid Denial of Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) Merely for Delay/Non-Filing of\nReturn: 8.1It is respectfully submitted that the denial of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) solely\non the ground of non-filing or belated filing of return of income, is legally unsustainable,\nfactually incorrect, and contrary to the settled judicial posit…

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 147Section 250

…hn Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 170\nTaxman 304/305 ITR 103 (SC) (para 3), Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman\n1/284 ITR 323 (SC) (para 3), Sanchit Software & Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 25\ntaxmann.com 123/210 Taxman 539/349 ITR 404 (Bom.) (para 6)\n8. Invalid Denial of Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) Merely for Delay/Non-Filing of\nReturn: 8.1It is respectfully submitted that the denial of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) solely\non the ground of non-filing or belated filing of return of income, is legally unsustainable,\nfactually incorrect, and contrary to the settled judicial posit…

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 147Section 250

…hn Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 170\nTaxman 304/305 ITR 103 (SC) (para 3), Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman\n1/284 ITR 323 (SC) (para 3), Sanchit Software & Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 25\ntaxmann.com 123/210 Taxman 539/349 ITR 404 (Bom.) (para 6)\n8. Invalid Denial of Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) Merely for Delay/Non-Filing of\nReturn: 8.1It is respectfully submitted that the denial of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) solely\non the ground of non-filing or belated filing of return of income, is legally unsustainable,\nfactually incorrect, and contrary to the settled judicial posit…

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 147Section 250

…hn Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 170\nTaxman 304/305 ITR 103 (SC) (para 3), Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman\n1/284 ITR 323 (SC) (para 3), Sanchit Software & Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2021] 25\ntaxmann.com 123/210 Taxman 539/349 ITR 404 (Bom.) (para 6)\n\n8. Invalid Denial of Deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) Merely for Delay/Non-Filing of\nReturn: 8.1It is respectfully submitted that the denial of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) solely\non the ground of non-filing or belated filing of return of income, is legally unsustainable,\nfactually incorrect, and contrary to the settled judicial pos…

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 928/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

…265 of the Constitution of India clearly provides\nthat no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.\nSimilar view has been taken recently by the Hon'ble jurisdictional\nHigh Court in Sancheti Software and Solutions P. Ltd. VS. CIT\n(2012) 349 ITR 404 (Bom). In our considered opinion there can\nbe no escape from the proposition that the assessee is entitled to\nargue at least before the appellate authorities that a wrong stand\ntaken at the time of filing the return of income should be\nallowed to be modified. The ld. AR has rightly relied on order\npassed by the Mumbai bench of the Tribunal i…

SHRI SHESHAVTAR 1008 SHRI KALLAJI VEDPITH EVAM SHODH SANSTHAN,NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, CA &For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

…Article 265 of the Constitution of India clearly provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Similar view has been taken recently by the Honble jurisdictional High Court in Sancheti Software & Solutions (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 404 (Bom). In our considered opinion there can be no escape from the proposition that the assessee is entitled to argue at least before the appellate authorities that a wrong stand taken at the time of filing the return of income should be allowed to be modified. The learned Authorised Representative has rightly relied on order passed by the Mumbai B…

SHAH C J WORLD LLP ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL /JCIT(A) , BANGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed in the terms stated above

ITA 3606/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Nayana Krishnakumar Sr. AR

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 14A

…d. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee. 9. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It is not res-integra as held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sanchit Software and Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 404 (Bom.) as under: “That in any civilized system the Assessee is bound to pay the tax which he is liable under the law to the Government and the Government on the other hand is obliged to collect only that amount of tax which is legally payable by an Assessee. The entire object of administration of tax is to secure the revenue for the development o…

CARE FOUNDATION VILLAGE,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD EXEMPTION 1(3), DELHI

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

ITA 3746/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Nfac, Delhi.

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Care Foundation Village Income Tax Officer J1/40B, Budh Vihar Ward Exemption 1(3) Phase-1 Vs. Delhi New Delhi-110086 PAN-AABTC387IG (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.K. Gupta, CA Department by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27/06/2024 Date of Pronouncement 05/07/2024 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for s…

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 142A(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 69B

…ion or on not being properly instructed is over assessed, 22 Om Prakash Bishnu the authorities under the Act are required to assist him and ensure that only legitimate taxes due are collected." (ix). In Sanchit Software & Solutions (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 404 (Bombay) it has been held that "In any civilized system, the assessee is bound to pay the tax which he liable under the law to the Government. The Government on the other hand is obliged to collect only that amount of tax which is legally payable by an assessee. The entire object of administration of tax is to secure the revenue for the developme…

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE CO OPERATIVE

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

ITA/466/2016HC Karnataka03 Mar 2021

Bench: Cit(A) Is Entertain Able Even When The Same Is Not Claimed In Original Return Of Income Nor The Assessee

Section 10Section 138(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 23CSection 260Section 260ASection 80P

…essee and not take advantage of the errors committed by the assessee. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'GOETZE (INIDA) LTD. VS. CIT', (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), 'SANCHIT SOFTWARE AND SOLUTIONS P. LTD. VS. CIT', (2021) 349 ITR 404 (BOM.), 'NIRMALA L. MEHTA VS. A.BALASUBRAMANIAM, CIT AND OTHERS', (2004) 269 ITR 1 (BOM.), 'CIT VS. PRUTHV BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDES LTD.', (2012) 349 ITR 336 (BOMBAY), 'CIT VS. JAI PARABOLIC SPRINGS LTD.', (2008) 306 ITR 42 (DEL), 'CIT VS. JINDAL SAW PIPES LTD.', (2010) 328 ITR 338 (DEL.), 'CIT VS. SAM GLOBAL SECURITIES LTD.', (20…

RAMOTAR SINGH HUF,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD- 2, REWARI

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

ITA 3933/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Ramotar Singh, Huf, Vs Ito, Rewari Ward-2, C/O Naresh Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Rewari. 1035-P, Sector-3, Part Ii, Near Ganeshi Lal Dharmshala, Rewari, Haryana. Pan: Aashr5279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate. Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 45

…For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd., 396 ITR 251; decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanchit Software and Solutions (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 349 ITR 404; decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders (P) Ltd., 349 ITR 136 and various other decisions. Referring to the decision of the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Narayan Singh, HUF vs. ITO, vide ITA No.3935/Del/2017, order dated 11th June, 2020, he submitted that under identical…