← 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

Ramalingaiah Ramesh, Maddur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Mandya

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 995/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri K.V. Srinivas Prasad
Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)

outset, the Ld.AR submitted that assessee is aggrieved by the rejection of the application to rectify the revised return Page 2 of 6 filed on 03.01.2018 wherein assessee declared income of Rs.3,29,560/-, erroneously paid tax of Rs.3,89,850/- on 28.03.2018 and Rs.4 ... auditor of the assessee furnished the income and as per the direction of the ITO and a revised return of income tax for the AY 2016-17 was filed on 03.01.2018 declaring income of Rs.3,29,560/- on which the assessee paid tax of Rs.10,820/- under acknowledgement number

Akshay Academy, Indore, M.P vs. The Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniakshay Academy Ito, Nfac 32 Kaimaidan Road, Delhi Khasgi Gagicha Vs. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadta8987B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

Section 10Section 11Section 12A

denied the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act on the ground that the assesse has not filed revised return of income for making a new claim which is not raised in the original return of income by placing the reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme ... year under consideration then the claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 cannot be denied by the AO on the ground of non-filing of revised return of income. Ld. AR has thus submitted that the assessee reiterated its claim of exemption u/s 11 & 12 before

Lexicon Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT2.2.1, Mumbai

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

ITA 497/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 68

Assessee, in response to which, the Assessee vide submission dated 21.12.2018 2 M/s. Lexicon Finance Limited submitted that it had filed a revised return on 11.06.2018 declaring the total income of Rs.1,18,85,530/- and accepting the discrepancies raised by the Department. 3. Subsequently, various statutory notices were issued

M/S Mx System International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2560/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, D/R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the assessee electronically filed its revised return of income on 30/03/2019 declaring loss of Rs.7,57,49,062/- as the original return was filed on 30/11/2018. The return was selected ... income for A. Y. 2018-19 was filed on 30.11.2018 declaring total loss of Rs. 11,93,51,376/-. Thereafter, you have filed revised return on 30.03.2019 declaring total loss of Rs. 7,57,49,062/-. Subsequently, your case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and Assessment Order

Backbase Europe Bv, Netherlands vs. ACIT Circle Intl. Taxation- 1(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3399/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh3399/Del/2023 [Assessment Year: 2021-22]

Section 143(3)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

wrong, incorrect, erroneous, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law and ought to have appreciated that the brushing aside of revised return of income was wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law. 22. The ACIT /DRP failed to appreciate that the impugned order was passed ... wrong, incorrect, erroneous, invalid, unjustified and not sustainable both on facts and in law and ought to have appreciated that the brushing aside of revised return of income was wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law. In this regard, the matter is restored to the file

Nahar Poly Films Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 458/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 458/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Nahar Poly Films Limited, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम 375, Industrial Area-A, Circle-1, Ludhiana 141003 Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaacn5708K अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Navdeep Sharma, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Navdeep Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 14Section 14A

make any fresh claim and had duly furnished and submitted the form for deduction, there was no requirement of filing any revised return. The plea of the Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd., vs. CIT (supra ... circumstances of the case, even though the assessee had raised said claim by way of letter dated 15.12.2004 and had not furnished any revised return of income." We therefore by respectfully following the aforesaid order dated 24/05/2013 in the case of M/s Budhewal Co-operative Society

ACIT 32 (1), Mumbai vs. Shubham Dynamic Real Estate Developers LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4606/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Acit 32(1), Shubham Dynamic Real Estate 202, Kuatilya Bhavan, Developers Llp, Bkc, Bandra East, Vs. A-501, Gladdiola, Old Hanuman Mumbai-400051. Road, Vile Parle East, Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Abtfs 6658 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rahul Hakkani
Section 133A

income , which was received from undisclosed income , which was received from subscription fees subscription fees to be used for recreation facilities. The assessee filed revised return of recreation facilities. The assessee filed revised return of recreation facilities. The assessee filed revised return of income on 26.03.2017 declaring total income

Tanseer Kaja, Karingarapully vs. ITO Circle 1, Palakkad

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 77/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahamed, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

14/10/2011. Thereafter, on 23/04/2013, as the return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 could not be rectified electronically, the assessee filed a revised return for the A.Y. 2011-12 manually declaring a total income of Rs.39,44,140/-belatedly. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3), but the revised return ... filed manually on 23/04/2013 was not considered. The manual revised return of income was treated as invalid as there was no provision for manual filing. Therefore, the original return was selected for scrutiny under CASS' and assessment completed accordingly. Hence, the case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act after recording

Tanseer Kaja, Karingarapully vs. ITO Circle 1, Palakkad

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 76/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahamed, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

14/10/2011. Thereafter, on 23/04/2013, as the return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 could not be rectified electronically, the assessee filed a revised return for the A.Y. 2011-12 manually declaring a total income of Rs.39,44,140/-belatedly. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3), but the revised return ... filed manually on 23/04/2013 was not considered. The manual revised return of income was treated as invalid as there was no provision for manual filing. Therefore, the original return was selected for scrutiny under CASS' and assessment completed accordingly. Hence, the case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act after recording

Tanseer Kaja, Karingarapully vs. ITO Circle 1, Palakkad

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 75/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahamed, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

14/10/2011. Thereafter, on 23/04/2013, as the return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 could not be rectified electronically, the assessee filed a revised return for the A.Y. 2011-12 manually declaring a total income of Rs.39,44,140/-belatedly. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3), but the revised return ... filed manually on 23/04/2013 was not considered. The manual revised return of income was treated as invalid as there was no provision for manual filing. Therefore, the original return was selected for scrutiny under CASS' and assessment completed accordingly. Hence, the case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act after recording

Tanseer Kaja, Karingarapully vs. ITO Circle 1, Palakkad

In the result, all the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 74/COCH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Shameem Ahamed, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

14/10/2011. Thereafter, on 23/04/2013, as the return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 could not be rectified electronically, the assessee filed a revised return for the A.Y. 2011-12 manually declaring a total income of Rs.39,44,140/-belatedly. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3), but the revised return ... filed manually on 23/04/2013 was not considered. The manual revised return of income was treated as invalid as there was no provision for manual filing. Therefore, the original return was selected for scrutiny under CASS' and assessment completed accordingly. Hence, the case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act after recording

Hariom Biotech Agri Farming, Nagpur vs. DCIT CPC Bengaluru, CPC Bengaluru Karnataka

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 300/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir AtalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)(b)Section 2

could not corrected in u/s 154 of the I.T. Act. 4. The correct alternative for the appellant would have been to file a revised return within time available for it, or file such revised return after getting any delay condoned by the Administrative Commissioner.” Aggrieved, the assessee is in further ... Supreme Court passed in Anchor Processing Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [1986] 161 ITR 159 (SC). The assessee failed to submit revised return of income under section 139(5) of the Act to take care of the omission in the original return of income. This is an appeal against order Hariom

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur vs. M/S. Gondwan A Engineers Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 420/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 8Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80ASection 80I

return of income, no deduction under section 801A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was claimed. The assessee thereafter filed a revised return of income on 10/09/2015 and claimed deduction under section 801A of the Act at ` 9,05,20,790, and declared net income ... Since there was no valid return under section 139(1), the same could not be revised and, hence, the revised return of income dated 10/09/2015, was invalid and no cognizance thereof can be taken. In the return of income filed on 01/12/2014, there was no claim under section 80IA

Rani Adaikalaraj Educational and Charitable Trust, Trichy vs. ITO, Exemptions, Trichy

In the result the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 575/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 575/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Rani Adaikalaraj Educational V. Exemption Ward & Charitable Trust, Income Tax Office, Represented By Managing 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trustee – A Joseph Francis, Trichy – 620 001. 7-B, Arokiasamypillai Lane, Crawford, Trichy – 620 012. [Pan:Aaatr-0494-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Counsel For Ms.G. Vardinikarthik, Advocate & Mr. V. Arunachalesh, Advocate & Mr. R. Sumedha, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. R. Vikneswaran, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. V.S. Jayakumar, Sr. Counsel for Ms.G. VardiniKarthik, Advocate & MrFor Respondent: Mr. R. Vikneswaran, JCIT
Section 1Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)

applied over 85% of income arising from property held :-6-: ITA. No:575/Chny/2023 under the trust. However, unless the assessee files a revised return making its claim, the claim made in the course of assessment proceedings by way of letter and revised computation of income cannot be entertained. Therefore, relying ... reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC), it is held that any claim could be allowed only when the assessee files revised return. Therefore, fresh claim made by the assessee, cannot be allowed merely on the basis of revised working. 3.8. In view of the above discussion, wrong claim made

Aircel Celllular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Cricle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1605/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1602, 1603, 1604 & 1605/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2012-2013, 2013-14 & 2017-2018 Aircel Cellular Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 769, Spencer Plaza, Vs. Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle 1(1) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaacr 5136R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2006-2007, Dated27.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 30Section 31(1)

telecom license and providing cellular services. It filed return of income for on 29.11.2006 declaring total income at Rs.89,85,72,257/-. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 31.7.2007 declaring taxable income at Rs.2,56,02,295/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order under section

Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1604/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1602, 1603, 1604 & 1605/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2012-2013, 2013-14 & 2017-2018 Aircel Cellular Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 769, Spencer Plaza, Vs. Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle 1(1) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaacr 5136R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2006-2007, Dated27.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 30Section 31(1)

telecom license and providing cellular services. It filed return of income for on 29.11.2006 declaring total income at Rs.89,85,72,257/-. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 31.7.2007 declaring taxable income at Rs.2,56,02,295/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order under section

Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1603/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1602, 1603, 1604 & 1605/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2012-2013, 2013-14 & 2017-2018 Aircel Cellular Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 769, Spencer Plaza, Vs. Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle 1(1) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaacr 5136R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2006-2007, Dated27.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 30Section 31(1)

telecom license and providing cellular services. It filed return of income for on 29.11.2006 declaring total income at Rs.89,85,72,257/-. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 31.7.2007 declaring taxable income at Rs.2,56,02,295/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order under section

Aircel Cellular Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1602/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1602, 1603, 1604 & 1605/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2012-2013, 2013-14 & 2017-2018 Aircel Cellular Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Income 769, Spencer Plaza, Vs. Tax, Mount Road, Corporate Circle 1(1) Chennai 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaacr 5136R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. V. Nandakumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri () These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)(Nfac) Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.10.2023 For Assessment Year 2006-2007, Dated27.10.2023

For Appellant: Mr. K. Venkatesh Prabhu, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. V. Nandakumar, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 260Section 30Section 31(1)

telecom license and providing cellular services. It filed return of income for on 29.11.2006 declaring total income at Rs.89,85,72,257/-. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 31.7.2007 declaring taxable income at Rs.2,56,02,295/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order under section

ACIT Circle-16(1), Delhi vs. Mahashian Di Hatti Private Limited, Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1484/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhasstt. Yr: 2017-18

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 44A

entitled to refund. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has levied penalty in question solely on the ground that assessee did not file revised return u/s 139(4) of the Act. Learned counsel relied on the impugned order of learned CIT(Appeals) in deleting the penalty in question

Meridian Construction India Limited, Patna Bihar vs. ACIT Circle-2 Patna, Patna

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69CSection 70

person- (a)fails to make the return required [under sub- section (1) of section 139 and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub- section (5) of that section, or] (b)fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under