Sunanda Ram Deka v. CIT

210 ITR 988High Court1994#6907 most cited

What is Sunanda Ram Deka v. CIT authority for?

A revised return can only be filed under Section 139(5) if there is an omission or a wrong statement in the original return due to bona fide inadvertence or mistake.

16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Sunanda Ram Deka v CIT · section 139(5) · revised return · omission · wrong statement · bona fide inadvertence · mistake · validity of return · assessment year

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 14ASection 154Section 250Section 37(1)Section 43B(f)

Issues it is cited on

section 15section 25section 143personsection 14indiatotal incomebusinessdocumentinterest

Judgments citing Sunanda Ram Deka v. CIT

Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3195/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: us. 2.

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 154Section 250

…and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the return filed u/s 139(5) as a valid return without considering the rulings in the cases of CIT versus Andhra Cotton Mills Ltd. 219 ITR 404 (AP) and Sunanda Ram Deka vs CIT 210 ITR 988 (Guwahati) relied upon by the AO; 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that loss accrued to the due to foreign exchange fluctuation in respect of external credit borrowings taken for acquisition of indigenous assets is a revenue loss.” 23.4. During the course of hearing both the sides had ad…

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3202/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
Section 127(2)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 263

…n of Income has no locus standi, considering the statutory parameters prescribed in the relevant Section. The above view gathers support from the following judicial rulings, CIT v/s Andhra Cottons Mills Limited (219 ITR 404 (AP)) and Sunanda Ram Deka v/s CIT (210 ITR 988 (Gauhati)). In both these rulings, the Hon'ble High Courts have unequivocally and famously held that, “…. We find that under s. 139(5), a revised return could be filed if there is an omission or a wrong statement....” CIT v/s Andhra Cottons Mills Limited and "....For a valid revised return under s. 139(5) it is necessary that omission or wrong st…

DCIT, Corporate Circle- 1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. National Aluminium Company Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

ITA 65/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

…ide mistake which is not in this case, therefore, the claim made by the assessee u/s.32AC of the Act should not be accepted. In support of his arguments, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Sunanda Ram Deka Vs. CIT, [1994] 210 ITR 988 (Gau). Further he relied on the orders of authorities below and submitted that the assessee also could not provide any conclusive evidence to prove its acquisition within the stipulated period i.e. after 31.03.2013 but before 01.04.2015, neither before the AO nor before the CIT(A), to satisfy the provisions of Section ITA Nos.39&69/CTK/2019 ITA…

National Aluminium Company Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle- 1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

ITA 1/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

…ide mistake which is not in this case, therefore, the claim made by the assessee u/s.32AC of the Act should not be accepted. In support of his arguments, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Sunanda Ram Deka Vs. CIT, [1994] 210 ITR 988 (Gau). Further he relied on the orders of authorities below and submitted that the assessee also could not provide any conclusive evidence to prove its acquisition within the stipulated period i.e. after 31.03.2013 but before 01.04.2015, neither before the AO nor before the CIT(A), to satisfy the provisions of Section ITA Nos.39&69/CTK/2019 ITA…

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. National Aluminium Company Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

ITA 69/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

…ide mistake which is not in this case, therefore, the claim made by the assessee u/s.32AC of the Act should not be accepted. In support of his arguments, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Sunanda Ram Deka Vs. CIT, [1994] 210 ITR 988 (Gau). Further he relied on the orders of authorities below and submitted that the assessee also could not provide any conclusive evidence to prove its acquisition within the stipulated period i.e. after 31.03.2013 but before 01.04.2015, neither before the AO nor before the CIT(A), to satisfy the provisions of Section ITA Nos.39&69/CTK/2019 ITA…

National Aluminium Company Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

ITA 39/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

…ide mistake which is not in this case, therefore, the claim made by the assessee u/s.32AC of the Act should not be accepted. In support of his arguments, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Sunanda Ram Deka Vs. CIT, [1994] 210 ITR 988 (Gau). Further he relied on the orders of authorities below and submitted that the assessee also could not provide any conclusive evidence to prove its acquisition within the stipulated period i.e. after 31.03.2013 but before 01.04.2015, neither before the AO nor before the CIT(A), to satisfy the provisions of Section ITA Nos.39&69/CTK/2019 ITA…

National Aluminium Company Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

ITA 338/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

…ide mistake which is not in this case, therefore, the claim made by the assessee u/s.32AC of the Act should not be accepted. In support of his arguments, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Sunanda Ram Deka Vs. CIT, [1994] 210 ITR 988 (Gau). Further he relied on the orders of authorities below and submitted that the assessee also could not provide any conclusive evidence to prove its acquisition within the stipulated period i.e. after 31.03.2013 but before 01.04.2015, neither before the AO nor before the CIT(A), to satisfy the provisions of Section ITA Nos.39&69/CTK/2019 ITA…

ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. National Aluminium Company Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

ITA 331/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

…ide mistake which is not in this case, therefore, the claim made by the assessee u/s.32AC of the Act should not be accepted. In support of his arguments, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Sunanda Ram Deka Vs. CIT, [1994] 210 ITR 988 (Gau). Further he relied on the orders of authorities below and submitted that the assessee also could not provide any conclusive evidence to prove its acquisition within the stipulated period i.e. after 31.03.2013 but before 01.04.2015, neither before the AO nor before the CIT(A), to satisfy the provisions of Section ITA Nos.39&69/CTK/2019 ITA…

Zoetis Pharmaceuticals Research P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3715/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.3715/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15) बिाम/ Zoetis Pharmaceutical Acit 11(3)(2) Research P. Ltd., Mumbai 31, Level-3, V. Kalpataru Synergy, Opp. Grand Hyatt, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400055 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aadcp5293L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Siddharth Shah Revenue By : Shri. C.S. Sharma, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 3715/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.03.2018 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. I.T.A. No.3715/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Shri. Siddharth ShahFor Respondent: Shri. C.S. Sharma, DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 251

…led based on revised computation of income. No revised audit report has been filed along with the revised return. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the original audit report and there was no omission as well. 4.3.11 In the case of Sunanda Ram Deka vs. CIT, 210 ITR 988, the Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati has held that the filing of the revised return after discovery of the omission or wrong statement 6 I.T.A. No.3715/Mum/2018 is not by itself sufficient to bring the revised return within the ambit of sub-section (5) of section 139. The further requirement is that the omission or wrong statement in the original…

Loot India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3025/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Meena & Shri Sridhar E
Section 1Section 139(5)Section 147

…rn. The revised return filed under section 139(5) does not wash away the original return. An originally filed return is a return in all essential respects and the revised return only cures the defects contained in the original return. Sunanda Ram Deka v. CIT (210 ITR 988 (Gauhati)) Omission/wrong statement must be due to bona fide inadvertent or mistake. The filing of a revised return after discovery of the omission or wrong statements is not by itself sufficient to bring the revised return within the ambit of section 139(5). A further requirement is that this omission or 4 M/s. Loot (India) Private Limited wrong…

Housing Development & Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5986/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…ion or wrong statement" occurring in section 139(5) has been judicially interpreted to mean a clerical or an inadvertent mistake or omission in the originally filed return. It signifies bona fids inadvertence or mistake. In the case of Sunanda Ram Deka v. C1T 210 ITR 988 (Gauh), It has been held That the filing of the revised return after discovery of omission or wrong statement is not by itself sufficient to bring the revised return within the ambit of section 139(5). The further requirement is that this omission or wrong statement in the original return must be due to bona fide inadvertence or mistake on the pa…

Fedex Express Tranportation and Supply Chain Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3621/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Fedex Express Transportation The Principal Commissioner Of & Supply Chain Services Income Tax – 9 Room No.214, 2Nd Floor, (India) Private Limited Boomerang, Unit No.801, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Wing-A, 8Th Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aabcf6516A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue By : Shri S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)
Section 119Section 139(5)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Fedex Express Transportation The Principal Commissioner of and Supply Chain Services Income Tax – 9 Room No.214, 2nd Floor, (India) Private Limited Boomerang, Unit No.801, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Wing-A, 8th Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400072 PAN: AABCF6516A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue by : Shri S. Padmaja (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date of…

Ponmani Suresh, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1011/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1011/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mrs. Ponmani Suresh, The Deputy Commissioner Of Old No.12A, New No.24, V. Income-Tax, Swarna Mangalam, East Road, Non Corporate Ward-2, West Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai 600 035. Pan Aalpp7516R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Ilavarasi, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

…r sec.139(5) of the Act. In support of his argument, ld.A.R placed reliance in the following case laws. i) F.C.Agarwal Vs. CIT in (1976) 102 ITR 408 (Gau.) ii) CIT Vs. J.K.A. subramania Chettiar (1977) 110 ITR 602(Mad.) iii) Sunanda Ram Deka Vs. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 988(Gau.) - - 9 ITA 1011/Mds/17 iv) CIT Vs. Shree Krishna Gyanoday Sugar Ltd., in [1990] 186 ITR 541 (Cal) v) CIT Vs. J. K. A. Subramania Chettiar in [1977] 110 ITR 602 (Mad) Further, he submitted that provisions of the section 292 BB cannot be helped to the Department. He prayed to quash the assessment . 6. On the other hand, ld.D.R submitted…

Mosbacher India Llc, Chennai vs. Addl. DIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1085/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2016AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 42(2)Section 42(2)(b)

…uring the course of assessment proceedings” and that “there is no bonafide inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee”. He also placed his reliance on the judicial precedents in the cases of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT (284 ITR 323), Sunanda Ram Deka Vs CIT (210 ITR 988), CIT Vs Andhra Cotton Mills Ltd (219 ITR 404) and Golden Installation & Engineering Ltd (305 ITR 427). As for taxability of transaction, the Assessing Officer observed as follows: I.T.A. No. 1085/CHNY/2015 Assessment year: 2010-11 Page 4 of 21 II. Further, the assessee's contention that the amount received by the assessee during the relevant p…

Vinod Kumar Khatri vs. DCIT

ITA - 132 / 2008HC Delhi23 Nov 2015
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 260A

…ts on the issue whether the filing of a revised return obliterates the original return, or whether the revised return only rectifies the deficiency in the original return, but did not obliterate it. The Gauhati High Court in Sunanda Rak Deka v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 988 (Gau) and the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. India’s Hobby Centre (P) Ltd (1995) 78 Taxman 377 (Cal) have held that the revised return substitutes the original return. On the other hand, the decisions in Deepnarain Nagu & Co. v. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 37 (MP), CIT v. Girish Chandraharidas (1992) 196 ITR 833 (Ker) and Pyramid Saimira Theatre Limit…

Vinod Kumar Khatri vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/132/2008HC Delhi23 Nov 2015
Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 260A

…ts on the issue whether the filing of a revised return obliterates the original return, or whether the revised return only rectifies the deficiency in the original return, but did not obliterate it. The Gauhati High Court in Sunanda Rak Deka v. CIT (1994) 210 ITR 988 (Gau) and the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. India’s Hobby Centre (P) Ltd (1995) 78 Taxman 377 (Cal) have held that the revised return substitutes the original return. On the other hand, the decisions in Deepnarain Nagu & Co. v. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 37 (MP), CIT v. Girish Chandraharidas (1992) 196 ITR 833 (Ker) and Pyramid Saimira Theatre Limit…