← 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

Devangbhai Jayantilal Desai, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1) Now Circle-2(1)(1)), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 547/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 547/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 68

case are that the assessee had filed return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 25.09.2012 declaring income of Rs.65,39,000/- and revised return on 19.01.2013 declaring total income of Rs.65,87,810/-, which was processed ITA No. 547/Ahd/2024 [Devangbhai Jayantilal Desai vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 – under

Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Sangha, Chikkmagalur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chikkamangalur

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

ITA 1337/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 154Section 264Section 264(1)Section 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

Koshti Vs. CIT reported in 276 ITR 165 wherein it was held as under: 18. The position is, therefore, that, regardless of whether the revised return was filed or not, once an assessee is in a position to show that the assessee has been over-assessed under the provisions

Shivalik Prints Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

ITA 8136/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80J

Airport Authority of India, In re 3. In the case of Nath Brothers exemption was claimed u/s 10B(5) in the revised return which was denied by the AO by application of 4th proviso to section 10B(1) as per which exemption is required to be claimed in the original ... that they did not form part of assessee's original return and that the assessee had not made a course correction by filing a revised return. 15.1 This view was based, as noticed above, on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra

M/S. Shivalik Prints Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessees’ appeals in ITA nos

ITA 2296/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80J

Airport Authority of India, In re 3. In the case of Nath Brothers exemption was claimed u/s 10B(5) in the revised return which was denied by the AO by application of 4th proviso to section 10B(1) as per which exemption is required to be claimed in the original ... that they did not form part of assessee's original return and that the assessee had not made a course correction by filing a revised return. 15.1 This view was based, as noticed above, on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra

Adani Electricity Mumbai Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The AO, CPC, Banglore (Jurisdictional AO : the Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 543/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

facts of the case are that the assessee Company initially filed its original return of income on September 25, 2019, and later submitted a revised return on January 1, 2020, declaring a total loss of Rs. (-) 10,06,36,03,425/- under the normal provisions of the Income ... This communication determined the total loss at Rs. (-) 10,03,01,75,248/-, which was a modification from the loss amount stated in the revised return. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer at the CPC made a disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) concerning employees' contributions

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 4105/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 is partly allowed

ITA 4952/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm A.Y.2006-07 [ By Assessee] &

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL , JM A.Y.2006-07

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 3868/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal , Jm

Section 14Section 143Section 36Section 41

Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

Ujagar Research Foundation, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 43(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1697/DEL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Gaur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)

provision requiring furnishing of form 10B (Audit Report) is procedural in nature and assessee had filed Audit report before filing the revised return of Income, which was much before initiating the assessment by LD AO. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case learned NFAC, JCIT (A) erred ... assessee received notice of infirmity that Form No. 10B which was required to be filed, was not filed. 4. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 06.01.2020 but did not file Form No. 10B. The return was processed u/s 143(1) determining the income

DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Genpact India Now Merged With Genpact India Pvt. Ltd.), Haryana

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6773/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 10A(4)

ITES). For the assessment under dispute, the assessee had filed its return of income originally on 04.10.2010. Subsequently, on 27.12.2011, the assessee filed a revised return of income declaring income of Rs.4,938,767,156/-. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has computed deduction

Genpact India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6582/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 10A(4)

ITES). For the assessment under dispute, the assessee had filed its return of income originally on 04.10.2010. Subsequently, on 27.12.2011, the assessee filed a revised return of income declaring income of Rs.4,938,767,156/-. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has computed deduction

Sarojben Rajkumar Bansal Legal Heir of Late Rajkumar Kakaram Bansal, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 306/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.306/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sarojben Rajkumar Bansal The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Legal Heir Of Circle-1 V/S. Late Shri Rajkumar Kakaram Bhavnagar – 364 001 Bansal Plot No.1497/B, Opp. Theosophical Lodge Bhavnagar, Gujarat 364 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanpb 1618 G अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

issued on 31.03.2021 with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Ahmedabad. The assessee, through legal heirs, filed a revised return on 31.05.2021, reiterating the income declared in the original return and requesting the reasons for reopening the assessment. During the reassessment proceedings, the AO observed

Mohan Shriniwas Bhise, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 3, Sangli

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions

ITA 900/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Amol R. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 69

filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.12,49,980/- on 24.06.2019 which was subsequently revised by filing revised return on 13.12.2019. He has also shown income u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) from engineering and technical consultancy along with salary income from Maharashtra

Amit Sajjan Kumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1378/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalamitsajjankumargupta, Dcit-8(2)(1), 110, Ashirwad, Roomno.624, बनाम/ Ahmedabad Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Carnac Bunder, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abrpg2852N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravikant Pathak.Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/10/2024 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (A) Nfac, Erred In Confirming Order Made U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Bad In Law, Ultra Vires & Without Appreciating The Facts, Submission & Evidences In The Proper Perspective, Without Providing Copies Of Material Used Against The Appellant & Without Providing Opportunity Of Cross Examination, Is Liable To Be Annulled.

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

long long term securities (Illustrations) - Assessment year 2014-15 Assessee filed its return for relevant year - Subsequently, pursuant to a survey assessee filed revised return and claimed exemption in respect of long-term capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made additions

Shri Munish Arora, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

ITA 171/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 40A(3)

section 153A/153C are not made for the benefit of the assessee. Return filed in response to notice u/s 153A/153C is not substitute of revised return for the assessee to claim such benefit. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT (284 ITR 323) ruled that ... fresh claim before the assessing officer can be made only by filing of Revised Return and not otherwise. Therefore, whatever claim the assessee has not made while filing the return u/s 139(1)/139(4) of the Act, he cannot make fresh claim by filing the return u/s 153A/153C

Shri Munish Arora, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

ITA 170/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 40A(3)

section 153A/153C are not made for the benefit of the assessee. Return filed in response to notice u/s 153A/153C is not substitute of revised return for the assessee to claim such benefit. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT (284 ITR 323) ruled that ... fresh claim before the assessing officer can be made only by filing of Revised Return and not otherwise. Therefore, whatever claim the assessee has not made while filing the return u/s 139(1)/139(4) of the Act, he cannot make fresh claim by filing the return u/s 153A/153C

Shri Munish Arora, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

ITA 169/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 40A(3)

section 153A/153C are not made for the benefit of the assessee. Return filed in response to notice u/s 153A/153C is not substitute of revised return for the assessee to claim such benefit. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT (284 ITR 323) ruled that ... fresh claim before the assessing officer can be made only by filing of Revised Return and not otherwise. Therefore, whatever claim the assessee has not made while filing the return u/s 139(1)/139(4) of the Act, he cannot make fresh claim by filing the return u/s 153A/153C

Shri Munish Arora, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

ITA 158/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 40A(3)

section 153A/153C are not made for the benefit of the assessee. Return filed in response to notice u/s 153A/153C is not substitute of revised return for the assessee to claim such benefit. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT (284 ITR 323) ruled that ... fresh claim before the assessing officer can be made only by filing of Revised Return and not otherwise. Therefore, whatever claim the assessee has not made while filing the return u/s 139(1)/139(4) of the Act, he cannot make fresh claim by filing the return u/s 153A/153C

Shri Munish Arora, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

ITA 157/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 40A(3)

section 153A/153C are not made for the benefit of the assessee. Return filed in response to notice u/s 153A/153C is not substitute of revised return for the assessee to claim such benefit. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT (284 ITR 323) ruled that ... fresh claim before the assessing officer can be made only by filing of Revised Return and not otherwise. Therefore, whatever claim the assessee has not made while filing the return u/s 139(1)/139(4) of the Act, he cannot make fresh claim by filing the return u/s 153A/153C

Shri Munish Arora, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeals filed for Assessee are disposed off as under:

ITA 156/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 156/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 157/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 158/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 169/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 170/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 171/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Munish Arora, Vs. The Acit, बनाम Central Circle-Ii, 1136, Ist Floor, Chandigarh Sector 8-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aexpa3762N अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 40A(3)

section 153A/153C are not made for the benefit of the assessee. Return filed in response to notice u/s 153A/153C is not substitute of revised return for the assessee to claim such benefit. Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT (284 ITR 323) ruled that ... fresh claim before the assessing officer can be made only by filing of Revised Return and not otherwise. Therefore, whatever claim the assessee has not made while filing the return u/s 139(1)/139(4) of the Act, he cannot make fresh claim by filing the return u/s 153A/153C