← All Phrases

“Section 139(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 139Section 139(5)688 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 139(5) is Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), cited in 1,842 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 139(5)

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
384 ITR 490 · 2016 · High Court
631
citing judgments

Co-operative banks are not fundamentally different from co-operative societies, entitling them to claim deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including for interest income treated as business income.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
391 ITR 274 · 2017 · Supreme Court
290
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A or 10AA of the Income-tax Act is computed on the profits of the eligible unit without first setting off losses from other units or non-eligible units. Conversely, losses incurred by an eligible unit are allowed to be set off against the assessee's other taxable business profits.

Smt. Tarulata Shyam v. CIT
108 ITR 345 · 1977 · Supreme Court
209
citing judgments

Taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, assuming that the law-making authority does not commit a mistake or make an omission. There is no room for purposive interpretation under direct tax laws.

PCIT v. Wipro Ltd.
140 Taxmann.com 223 · 2022 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Exemption provisions under Chapter III, such as Section 10B(8), must be interpreted strictly, and any claim for such exemptions must be made in the return of income. The principles governing Chapter III (incomes not forming part of total income) differ from those for Chapter VIA (deductions in computing total income).

DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
88 ITD 273 · 2004 · ITAT
169
citing judgments

Interest, sales tax, and purchase tax subsidies received by an assessee are generally considered capital receipts, not revenue income, for income tax purposes.

CIT v. Torrent Power Ltd.
354 ITR 630 · 2013 · High Court
166
citing judgments

If an assessee possesses sufficient interest-free own funds to cover investments yielding exempt income, it is presumed that such investments are made from these own funds, precluding any disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A, even when borrowed funds are also available.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

Judgments citing Section 139(5)

Amman Spintex, Erode vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2079/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2079 & 2080/Chny/2024 िनधा<रण वष< /Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Amman Spintex, The Dy. Commissioner Of No.155, Mill Road, Vs. Income Tax, Gobichettipalayam, Circle-1, Erode – 638 476. Erode. [Pan: Aazfa 7154J]

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Mrs. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 273BSection 80I

opportunity to reverse the same, considering that Intimation under Section 143(1) was issued after the time limit to file return under Section 139(5) and that even when the Intimation was issued, the same did not point out this discrepancy in its claim and that the same was followed

ACIT Circle-1(2), New Delhi vs. Associated Techno Plastics Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7444/DEL/1992[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2025AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54F

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 04.08.2015 (date wrongly noted in the assessment order as 26.07.2015) which was revised on 09.08.2015under Section 139(5) of the Act declaring the same total income. However, during the course of hearing now before me, learned Counsel for the assessee pointed ... assessee at Gurgaon. Admittedly, in the assessment year 2015-16 assessee filed his return of income on04.8.2015 which was revised under Section 139(5) of the Act on 09.08.2015. The ITO Ward 1(4), Dibrugarh issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act after one year on 22.09.2016. Admittedly

Spolo Ceramic Pvt Ltd, Morbi vs. DCIT, Circle, Morbi

ITA 953/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.953/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Spolo Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Vs. Survey No. 203/P1, Nr. Amardham, Ring Road, Matel Road, At. Dhuva, Dist. Rajkot - 360001 Morbi - 363622 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaxcs0845B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Pungalia , Ld Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04/03 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/03 /2025

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Pungalia , Ld CIT(DR)
Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM आयकरअपीलसं

Shabbir Taher Kachwala, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

The appeal of the appellant is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3454/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ao As Held By Various Case Laws.

For Appellant: Shri Anil GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Makadia
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 249

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “SMC” Bench, Mumbai. Befor Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) Shabbir

Veena Khindri, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

ITA 443/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

Rahul Khindri, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (1), Amritsar

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 37/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 37/Asr/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Rahul Khindri, बनाम A.O., Cpc, 2157, Bazar Sirki Banda, Banglore Katra Dullo, Amritsar Indra Nagar, 143001 स्थधयी लेखध सं./Pan No: Apfpk9150F अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्धाररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 उदघोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- 1. That The Ld. C1T(A) Vide Order U/S 250(6) Dated 31.07.2023 Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Not Providing The Benefit Of Lower Tax As Per Section 115Bac Due To The Fact That Form 10 Ie Was Not Filed Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) I.E. 31.12.2021. 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 2

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

stretch of imagination, could have been ignored in view of the following facts: - 5.1 That Revised Income Tax Return under Section 139(5) refers to the opportunity provided to taxpayers to correct errors, 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 9 omissions, or any inaccuracies in their originally filed income ... returns by filing a revised return. Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act 1961 grants taxpayers the right to file a revised return in case they discover any mistakes or need to update information that was not included in the original filing. 5.2 There are key aspects and features

Kuldeep Singh Shekhawat, Kota vs. ITO W-2(1), Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

Capital Gains Account Scheme, can be made till the date of belated return under section 139(4) or revised return under section 139(5) as the wordings used in section 54(2) is "section 139", and not section 139(1), which covers all sub-sections of section 139". The Supreme

Sivakumar Chiluvuri, Telangana vs. ADIT (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1367/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA Balaji VenkatsubramaniamFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA

Takhatsinh F Dodia, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Bharuch

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

ITA 1071/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1071/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Takhatsinh F. Dodia, Vs. The Acit, 5, Guru Krupa Society, Opp – Utran Circle – 1, Health Centre, Utran, Surat - 394105 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alnpd6029Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Karan Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/03/2025

Section 139(5)Section 250Section 270ASection 5Section 69A

there was a genuine mistake in reporting the agricultural income, then the appellant should have filed his revised or belated return. As per section 139(5), if any person who has furnished return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein

Dashrath Kumar Sen, Ajmer vs. ACIT, Nefac -1(2)(2), Delh, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1258/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Zeeba Mohammadi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80CSection 80T

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Madan Kumar Sivinigari, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 2606/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

confirmed the Order of AO. The CIT(A) held that the Assessee has not filed Form 67 before the time allowed under section 139(5) of the Act, and therefore Form 67 is non-est in law. The CIT(A) also held that provisions of Rule 128 are mandatory

Samaresh Paul, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward 25(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2574/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2574/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Samaresh Paul……...…... .……………………………………..….……….Appellant 16C, Bose Pukur Road, Kolkata – 700042. [Pan: Aeupp8135R] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwa & T. Wasi, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,42,850/-. The Assessee Thereafter Filed His Revised Return Of Income U/S 139(5) Of The Act By Declaring The Same Total Income. However, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Has Made Property Transaction Of Rs.98,51,000/- During The F.Y 2015-16 Relevant To A.Y 2016-17 Which Has Been Escaped Within The Meaning Of Section 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued Followed By Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act. However, The Assessee Did Not Turn Up In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Made

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jsr Infra Developers Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2232/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153CSection 801ASection 80I

that the revised return filed by held that the "Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under the assessee under section

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)

return has been accepted by the revenue. It is a settled position of law that when the assessee files a revised return 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

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)

return has been accepted by the revenue. It is a settled position of law that when the assessee files a revised return 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs. Ankaa Realtors, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee for the A

ITA 75/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.71/Hyd/2021 To 75/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y.: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 To 2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Ankaa Realtors Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.102/Hyd/2021 To 108/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ankaa Realtors Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(4), Hyderabad vs. Ankaa Realtors, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee for the A

ITA 74/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.71/Hyd/2021 To 75/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y.: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 To 2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Ankaa Realtors Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.102/Hyd/2021 To 108/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ankaa Realtors Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(4), Hyderabad vs. Ankaa Realtors, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee for the A

ITA 73/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.71/Hyd/2021 To 75/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y.: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 To 2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Ankaa Realtors Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.102/Hyd/2021 To 108/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ankaa Realtors Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(4), Hyderabad vs. Ankaa Realtors, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee for the A

ITA 72/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.71/Hyd/2021 To 75/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y.: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 To 2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Ankaa Realtors Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.102/Hyd/2021 To 108/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ankaa Realtors Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad vs. Ankaa Realtors, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and assessee for the A

ITA 71/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.71/Hyd/2021 To 75/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/A.Y.: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2015-16 To 2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Ankaa Realtors Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.102/Hyd/2021 To 108/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2017-18) M/S Ankaa Realtors Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle-3(4) [Pan : Abffa0287M] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 25/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12 To 2017-18. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant