← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt. Ltd.(Earlier Known As Ritika Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 2696/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1

ITA No.2696/Del/2023 & Others IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-04, New Delhi vs. Reliance Ritu Kumar Pvt. Ltd.(Earlier Known As Ritika Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 2279/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1

ITA No.2696/Del/2023 & Others IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Shyam Metalics Amd Energy Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1074/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Metalics & Engery Ltd…...………..............................……….……Appellant 83, Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Topsia, Kol-700046, [Pan: Aahcs5842A] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 15, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 250Section 68

consider the claim made by the assessee in the revised return filed 12 Shyam Metalics And Engery Ltd after the time prescribed by Section 139(5) for filing a revised return had already expired. 9. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court

Lipi Jain Family Trust, Ashoknagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward Gwalior, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Lipi Jain Family Trust, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ward No. 18, Subhash Ward Gwalior Ganj Ashok Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Mp Pan: Aabtl3606J Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chand Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chand Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)

rectify mistake due to a bonafide inadvertently mistake on the part of appellant and such return would not be a revised return under section 139(5). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) has erred in considering that revised ... return was filed within the permissible time frame prescribed under section 139(5) for the appeal assessment year, and the fact that the return was filed after the processing Lipi Jain Family Trust of the original return by CPC should not be a ground for rejecting its consideration because

Dhritiman Roy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 542/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 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

Kanodia Technoplast Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-19, Delhi

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act is

ITA 1355/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Section 132ASection 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 270Section 270ASection 274Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, DELHI BEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. MANISH AGARWAL

Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd, Solapur vs. The DCIT, Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2455/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

revised return. Extracts of the judgement is presented as below for ready reference: *....Also In such a situation, filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act claiming carrying forward of losses subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case, the assessee filed its original ... under section 139(3). Therefore, 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 Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under Section 139(3), in order to avail the benefit

Kothari Agritech Private Limited, Solapur vs. DCIT Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2392/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

revised return. Extracts of the judgement is presented as below for ready reference: *....Also In such a situation, filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act claiming carrying forward of losses subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case, the assessee filed its original ... under section 139(3). Therefore, 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 Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into a return under Section 139(3), in order to avail the benefit

Mtitanium Apartments Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4694/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-Circle 1(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 6810 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Narayn AtalFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

under court has held that, the revised return filed by assessee under court has held that, the revised return filed by assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return filed under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return filed under section 139(5) can only

Yogesh Mathur, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 493/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.493/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Shri Yogesh Mathur Mig-694, Behind Pandit Medical, Padmanabhpur, Durg-491 001 (C.G.) Pan: Adrpm8822E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Akry Organics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Central Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we allow the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80-IA(4) to the extent of ₹17,40,75,413/-, as made in the revised return of income

ITA 3014/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80

Form No. 10CCB annexed or filed along with it. 3 Akry Organics Pvt.Ltd., 3.3. Subsequently, the assessee availed its statutory right under section 139(5) to file a revised return of income for the said assessment year. The revised return was filed on 31/03/2022, declaring a reduced income ... income filed under section 5 Akry Organics Pvt.Ltd., 139(1). Such a claim was made only later in the revised return under section 139(5), which, significantly, was filed after the statutory due date for filing of the original return. Furthermore, Form No. 10CCB was admittedly filed only on 30/03/2022

Pramod Kumar Dubey, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, 1(3), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 314/AGR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manuj Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 111ASection 112ASection 112A(6)Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 87A

Income from other sources: Rs. 9,236/- 2.2 The return was subsequently revised on 31.12.2024 within the time allowed under section 139(5), to correct certain omissions in the capital gain schedule. In the revised return, the assessee exercised the option under section 115BAC(1A), i.e., to be governed

Shri. Giridhar Chidanamarri, Villivakkam vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward 17(6), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1824/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1824/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Giridhar Chidanamarri Income Tax Officer, No.21/32 Sri Kara Flats, Non-Corporate Ward-17(6), Kaveri Street, Villivakkam, Chennai. Tamil Nadu – 600 049. [Pan: Adspg2451L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Sonali, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Veeramany K, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms.Sonali, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Veeramany K, IRS
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 90

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ’डी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार धिरर

Keystone Foundation, Nilgiris vs. ACIT, Exemptions Ward, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1680/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1680/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Keystone Foundation, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of P.B. No. 35, Groves Hill Road, Income Tax, Kotagiri, Nilgiris 643 217. Exemptions Ward, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaatk0218N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.05.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-9, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate Submits That The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Made On Account Of Non-Filing Of Audit Report In Form 10B In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 11Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(A)Section 164(2)

circumstances of the case. 2 I.T.A. No.1680/Chny/25 3. At the outset, we note that the assessee filed return of income on 29.11.2023 under section 139(5)/139(4A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. According to the ld. AR, the due date for filing of return

Ceva Logistics India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4194/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ceva Logistics India Private Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax-1(1) The Qube-A-902/903, 9Th National E-Assessment Floor, M.V. Road, Marol, Centre-Gurgaon, Andheri East Mumbai, Haryana Maharashtra, 400059 Pan: Aabct7326A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv& Sh. Bhavesh Mehta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 06/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assesseepertaining To Assessment Year 2020-21 Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed By Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1(1) Dated 15/07/2024 U/S143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short).

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

1 Ceva Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘H’ NEW DELHI

Yellapragada Srinivasa Sankara Narayana, Bangalore vs. ACIT, International Circle 1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 3/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2021-22 Shri. Yellapragada Srinivasa Sankara Narayana, Vs. Acit, 666, 2Nd Phase, 7Th Block, Bsk 3Rd Stage, International Taxation, Bangalore – 560 085. Circle – 1(2), Pan : Accpn 8746 L Bangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Prathik P,Advocate Revenue By : Shri.Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Prathik P,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.Sankar Ganesh D, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 154Section 45

accepted second revised return filed by the assessee within the due date for filing revised return of income as per section 139(5) of the Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that original return was filed on 30.08.2021 declaring income of Rs.2 ... paid self assessment tax of Rs.37,11,569/-. On 01.10.2021 assessee filed return of income under section 139(5) of the Act declaring income of Rs.2,18,34,470/- claiming refund of Rs.9,210/-. On 02.11.2021, the CPC processed return filed under section 139(1) of the Act and raised

Sh. Prabhati Lal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-4(5), Jaipur

ITA 1021/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 54

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k

Shri Poornima Entertainments LLP, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 835/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Poornima Entertainments Llp, Flat No. A-304, Sdc Gateway, Plot No. B-1-2, Ghiya Marg Bani Park, Jaipur 302 016 Pan No.: Aeafs 8967C ...... Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 3Section 80Section 80I

Report [Form 3CA-3CD] on 26.12.2023 for reporting its claim of deduction u/s. 80IAC of the Act. Return of Income was revised under section 139(5) of the Act on 27.12.2023 wherein claim under section 80IAC of the Act was duly supported by Form No. 10CCB. Assessee Appellant filed ... Form No. 10CCB and Revised Tax Audit Report was filed on 27.12.2023. The revision of Return was well within the time prescribed under section 139(5). The reply to the proposed adjustment was also filed on 09.01.2024. 4 Shri Poornima Entertainments LLP 5. On the basis of above factual matrix

Gujarat Technological University, Ahmedabad, Vadodara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 Exemptions, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1187/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1187/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-10 Gujarat Technological University, The Dcit, Nr. Vishwakarma Govt. Engg. College, बनाम/ Circle-1, V/S. Near Visar Three Roads, Exemptions, Chandkheda Society Area S.O, Ahmedabad Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad-382424. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaalg1109L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Amrin Pathan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: ] ] This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Cit(A)”] Dated 14.03.2025, For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2019–20, Arising Out Of The Rectification Order Passed By The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bengaluru, Under

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr-DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

reason that the institution was not considered as “substantially financed” by the Government. 4. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return under section 139(5) on 30.11.2020 claiming exemption of Rs. 74,05,74,800/- under section 11 and Rs. 52,41,30,536/- under section 10(23C)(iiiab

Bhagwan Precision, Rohtak vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

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

ITA 5174/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbhagwan Precision, Vs. Acit, 35, Subhash Nagar, Model Town, Rohtak. Rohtak – 124 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aajfb6625K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Ayush Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Order : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl./Jcit (Appeals)-6, Chennai [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.09.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice Brief Fact Of The Case That Assessee Is A Firm Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Precision Turned Parts. The Works Of The Assessee Is At Industrial Part Iv, Plot No.9 V, Begampur (Haridwar)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 44ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘A’, NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI