← All Phrases

“revised return”

Assessment ProceduresSection 139(5)Section 139(5)10,551 judgments

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

Leading authorities on revised return

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.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders
349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court
956
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.
306 ITR 42 · 2008 · High Court
349
citing judgments

An assessee can make an additional claim for deduction or file a revised computation of income during assessment proceedings, even if a revised return of income has not been filed. Such additional claims or grounds can also be admitted at the appellate stage.

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.
341 ITR 293 · 2012 · High Court
205
citing judgments

A Commissioner can revise an assessment order under Section 263 if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This includes cases where the Assessing Officer fails to make further inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements in the return.

CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal
251 ITR 9 · 2001 · Supreme Court
179
citing judgments

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not automatically leviable merely because a higher income is declared, even after a search or in a voluntarily revised return. The initial burden to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars lies with the Revenue.

Madhya Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal
241 ITR 124 · 2000 · High Court
89
citing judgments

A penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied if an assessee files a revised return to buy peace and avoid litigation, and the revenue accepts this without objection.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT
220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court
84
citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

35. In Virbhadra Singh (HUF) v. Pr. CIT
298 CTR 393 · 2017 · High Court
76
citing judgments

Where no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer in passing an assessment order after accepting a revised return, the Commissioner acts within their power under section 263 to direct a fresh assessment.

Judgments citing revised return

The ACIT, (OSD)-I, Range-4, Ahmedabad vs. Jmc Projects (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2353/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessment completed are tabulated below: A.Y. Date of Filing Date of Filing Section under Date of Order of Date of Order of Original Revised Return which AO passed AO CIT(A) Return of of Income the order Income 2007-08 31/10/2007 10-01-2008, 143(3) 21/12/2009 05/10/2011 ... declaring the same income as per original or revised return of income for the ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 4 respective assessment years. In case of A.Y.2007-08

Jmc Projects (India) Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)-I, Range-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 2036/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessment completed are tabulated below: A.Y. Date of Filing Date of Filing Section under Date of Order of Date of Order of Original Revised Return which AO passed AO CIT(A) Return of of Income the order Income 2007-08 31/10/2007 10-01-2008, 143(3) 21/12/2009 05/10/2011 ... declaring the same income as per original or revised return of income for the ITA No.2815/Ahd/2011 and other 17 appeals JMC Projects (India) Ltd. vs. DCIT-ACIT (By assessee and Revenue) Asst. Years : 2007-08 to 2015-16 4 respective assessment years. In case of A.Y.2007-08

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2767/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32A

assessed income of Rs 17035,27,63,567 was much lower than the returned income of Rs 18740,59,11,136 as per revised return filed on 30.03.2018 and hence, there is no question of concealment of income and consequent levy of penalty. Penalty levied on disallowance of depreciation

Kamalbhai Babulal Kahar, Sabarkantha vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sk Ward-1 (Previously Sk Ward-3), Himatnagar

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 1011/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Kamalbhai Babulal Kahar Ito, Sk-Ward-1 89, Shardakunj Society Vs (Previously Ito Sk, At & Po Himatnagar Ward-3, Himatnagar) Dist. Sabarkantha-383 001 Sabarkantha. Pan : Acppk 8856 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divetia, Ar : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

assessee filed return of income declaring 3 income from salary/pension and interest income totaling to Rs.3,03,660/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return during reassessment proceedings including income earned from fisheries trading, returning profits earned thereon to tax on presumptive basis in terms of provisions of section 44AD ... shown it in the return filed pursuant to the notice under section 148 of the Act, and had subsequently disclosed the same in his revised return filed. He therefore held that this was only as a cover up to explain the source of cash deposited in his bank account

Sh. Surendra Kumar Patni, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 977/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Surendra Kumar Patni, C/O. M/S. Kalani & Co., 5Th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhi Nagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 015. Pan No.: Adupp9249 D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-2, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 005. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Mr. P.C. Parwal, Ca, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2024 O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Jaipur Dated 25.06.2024 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Mr. P.C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69B

survey under section 133A of the Act at hospital of assessee and found certain unaccounted receipts in name of doctors and assessee thereafter filed revised return and disclosed unaccounted receipts as part of profit or gain of business of hospital, as unaccounted receipts were relating to business operations of assessee

Prakash Lachmandas Gera, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1819/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 54F

having DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1066898056(1). 2. The assessee is an individual filed its return of income on 04.08.2016 and filed revised return of income on 20.12.2016. Thereafter, the same was selected for scrutiny and assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Ganesh Raghunath Ghuge, Andheri East vs. Ward 42(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5098/MUM/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Bhupesh Negandhi, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kakoli Ghosh, Sr. D/R
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

original return was revised before the due date of revising the return and, therefore, the original return of income is substituted by a valid revised return meaning thereby that the original return is obliterated for all the purposes under the Act. In our understanding, filing of Form 10IE

Syngenta India Private Limited (Earlier Known As Syngenta India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Range 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 4414/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Shri PranayFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Bhimrao Pasale
Section 10(1)Section 115Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37(1)

Comp Ltd. (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant-assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The claim, therefore ... does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited

Syngenta India Pvt Ltd ( Erstwhile Known As Syngenta India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -Range 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 3831/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Shri PranayFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Bhimrao Pasale
Section 10(1)Section 115Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37(1)

Comp Ltd. (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant-assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The claim, therefore ... does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited

Syngenta India Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 3449/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Shri PranayFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Bhimrao Pasale
Section 10(1)Section 115Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37(1)

Comp Ltd. (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant-assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The claim, therefore ... does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited

Syngenta India Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 3448/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Shri PranayFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Bhimrao Pasale
Section 10(1)Section 115Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37(1)

Comp Ltd. (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant-assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The claim, therefore ... does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited

Vachaspati Sharma, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1180/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vachaspati Sharma Vs Ito Village – Hayatpur Garhi Ward-4 Harsaru, Hayatpur, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan No.Fnqps2021R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellants By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nain, Advocate Sh. K.L. Pahwa, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2024 Order Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 18Section 234BSection 234DSection 28Section 45(5)Section 56

case are that the assessee is a farmer. He has furnished his original return of income for A.Y.2019-20 electronically on 15.06.2019, subsequently filed revised return of income on 19.07.2019 declaring taxable total income at Rs.17,08,910/-. The case of the assessee has been selected for scrutiny by issuing notice

ITO(Exemption), Ward-1(3), Kolkata vs. Suresh Amiya Memorial Trust, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 652/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Kaustav Chakraborty &For Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 44A

that the provisions of section 12A are mandatory..... ....9. Having regard to the other provisions of the Act regarding filing of the return or revised return or rectifying the defects in the return, we are of the opinion that the provisions of section 12A are directory in the sense that ... applicable on the instant case as the same related to carry forward of loss which are made for the first time in the revised return and the claim was made post due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The submission of the assessee in this regard

M/S. Dulichand Motors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1807/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Susanta Saha, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 32Section 40A

such intimation vis-a-vis return of income filed it was found that the proposed adjustment was correct, however, the time to file revised return was till 31.03.2019 only hence, no revised return could be filed. Later, on 10.06.2019 the said return was processed and the total income was assessed

Lakshmana Achary Rajendra Pandian, Aruppukottai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 2710/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2710/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & S.P. No. 63/Chny/2024 [In Ita No. 2710/Chny/2024] Lakshmana Acharya Rajendra Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Pandian, 71, Kasukadai Bazar, Income Tax, Virudhunagar District, Aruppukottai, Corporate Circle-1, Tamil Nadu 626 101. Madurai. [Pan: Abopr8335C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.07.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 24 Days. Upon Hearing Both The Parties Along With Reasons Raised In The Affidavit & 2

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

return of income declaring total income of ₹.2,03,06,770/-. A survey was conducted on the assessee on 01.11.2011 and the assessee filed revised return of income declaring total income of ₹.2,08,93,510/-. Under scrutiny, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment and determined total income

Space Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1737/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2023-24 Space Developers The Ito 501, Gurukrupa Avenue, Vs Ward-1(1)(3) Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ahmedabad Ambawadi Ahmedabad – 380 015 (Gujarat) Pan: Absfs 0313 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/11/2024 आदेश/O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 199Section 250

supra and I am unable to agree with the same due to the following: i. It is an admitted fact that before processing the revised return, the AO, CPC issued a prior communication to the appellant dated 12/12/2023 regarding the mismatch in the gross receipts reflected in the 26AS

Altab Husen Ismail Vahora, Anand vs. ITO-Ward(1), Dahod

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

ITA 1732/AHD/2024[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2024

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri TR Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Kumar R. Pandya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 274

assessment year 2020-21 the assessee filed his original return of income disclosing total income of Rs. 18,94,550/- and then filed a Revised Return u/s. 139(5) on 11-01-2021 disclosing total income of Rs. 7,09,380/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment

Sg Wind Farm Pvt. Ltd., Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

ITA 1230/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 56

153A takes the place of original return u/s 139 for the purposes of all other provisions of the Act. Once the AO accepts the revised return filed u/s 153A, the original return u/s 139 abates and becomes non-est. Once return is filed u/s 153A, all provisions

Sg Wind Farm Pvt. Ltd., Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1229/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1227/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1228/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1229/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Sg Wind Farm Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Vs. 21, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarcs-5303-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 56

153A takes the place of original return u/s 139 for the purposes of all other provisions of the Act. Once the AO accepts the revised return filed u/s 153A, the original return u/s 139 abates and becomes non-est. Once return is filed u/s 153A, all provisions

Sg Wind Faarm Pvt. Ltd., Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3, Coimbatore

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1228/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1227/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1228/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1229/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1230/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Sg Wind Farm Private Limited Dcit बनाम/ Vs. 21, Pollachi Road, Central Circle-3 Palladam, Tirupur-641 664. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarcs-5303-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-10-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 56

153A takes the place of original return u/s 139 for the purposes of all other provisions of the Act. Once the AO accepts the revised return filed u/s 153A, the original return u/s 139 abates and becomes non-est. Once return is filed u/s 153A, all provisions