← 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

Microsoft Corporation (India) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3671/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, 16(1), Vs Microsoft Corporation (India) New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd., 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessment Year: 2015-16 Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Vs. Jcit, Ltd., Special Range-6, 807, New Delhi House, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 32Section 36(1)(va)

period. 4. A disallowance was also made for short grant of tax deducted at source amounting to INR 5,74.864,733/-. The assessee filed revised return of income on 29 March 2017 claiming TDS credit of INR 2,415,195,492. In the assessment order passed by AO, credit

ACIT, 16(1), New Delhi vs. Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3616/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, 16(1), Vs Microsoft Corporation (India) New Delhi. Pvt. Ltd., 807, New Delhi House, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C Assessment Year: 2015-16 Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Vs. Jcit, Ltd., Special Range-6, 807, New Delhi House, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacm5586C

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 32Section 36(1)(va)

period. 4. A disallowance was also made for short grant of tax deducted at source amounting to INR 5,74.864,733/-. The assessee filed revised return of income on 29 March 2017 claiming TDS credit of INR 2,415,195,492. In the assessment order passed by AO, credit

Ketan Arvindbhai Patel, Sojitra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Anand

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

ITA 269/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kedar Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 144Section 250

legal provision of section 139(5) In the impugned order in para 4.4 the learned CIT (A) has put much emphases on not filling revised return for the concern assessment year 2016-2017. But in doing so learned CIT(A) has totally overlooked the provisions of Section 139(5) which ... governs the scheme of Revised Return. The original return was filed on I.T.A No. 269/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No. 3 Ketan Arvindbhai Patel v. ITO 19/08/2017. In other words the original return was belated return u/s 139(4). Till Assessment year 2016-2017 Belated return were not allowed

Ravindra Bhagwan Potdar, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Nashik

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

ITA 647/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274

without making actual payment for which deduction was claimed. In compliance to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed his revised return of income declaring total income at Rs.11,42,450/-. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were also issued. After considering the submission of the assessee, the assessment ... completed vide order dated 31.01.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act accepting the revised return income. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer also 3 initiated penalty proceedings by issuing notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the IT Act on 31.01.2023 for under-reporting of income on the basis

Asstt. Commisssioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle Pune, P.M.T Building Swargate Pune vs. Kedari Redekar Shikshan Sanstha Gadhinglaj, Gadhinglaj

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 559/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Bharati
Section 12ASection 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 80G

capital expenditure of Rs.97,47,772/- (Rs.2,40,02,040/- - Rs.1,42,54,268/-) only was claimed as application of money in the revised return. According to the Ld. AO the said capital expenditure of Rs.1,42,54,268/- which was applied out of borrowed funds was not permissible

Tek Systems Global Services Private Limited, Hyderbad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderbad

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

ITA 487/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.487/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Tek Systems Global Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Services (P) Ltd, Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcf1518Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Ms. K. Amulya, Ca रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 05/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Ms. K. Amulya, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 270A

support services. The return of income in this case was filed on 29.11.2018 declaring an income of Rs. 24,42,26,420/-. A revised return was filed at an income of Rs. 24,18,41,090/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) dated ... this Assessment Order. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A are initiated for under reporting of income. 5. The assessee has reduced his income in the revised return by Rs. income. 23,85,335/- by reducing the education cess paid out of the business. As per reply dated 24.02.2021 the assessee has filed

ACIT-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. L and T Infrastructure Finance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4409/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Alpesh DharodFor Respondent: Raj Singh Meel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

issue of excessive deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act 1961. In its original and revised return of income the assesse has claimed TDS credit amounting to Rs.208,68,35,381/-. Subsequently, in the return filed pursuant to notice u/s 148 the assessee has claimed TDS credit ... under: “13. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the short granting of the credit. From the facts, we find that as per the revised return of income, the assessee has claimed TDS credit of Rs.168,45,14,220/-. However, the Learned Assessing Officer granted the credit of only Rs.136

DCIT-14.1.1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. L and T Infrastructure Finance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3567/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Alpesh DharodFor Respondent: Raj Singh Meel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

issue of excessive deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act 1961. In its original and revised return of income the assesse has claimed TDS credit amounting to Rs.208,68,35,381/-. Subsequently, in the return filed pursuant to notice u/s 148 the assessee has claimed TDS credit ... under: “13. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the short granting of the credit. From the facts, we find that as per the revised return of income, the assessee has claimed TDS credit of Rs.168,45,14,220/-. However, the Learned Assessing Officer granted the credit of only Rs.136

DCIT-14.1.1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. L and T Infrastructure Finance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3566/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Alpesh DharodFor Respondent: Raj Singh Meel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

issue of excessive deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act 1961. In its original and revised return of income the assesse has claimed TDS credit amounting to Rs.208,68,35,381/-. Subsequently, in the return filed pursuant to notice u/s 148 the assessee has claimed TDS credit ... under: “13. Ground Nos. 1 and 2 relate to the short granting of the credit. From the facts, we find that as per the revised return of income, the assessee has claimed TDS credit of Rs.168,45,14,220/-. However, the Learned Assessing Officer granted the credit of only Rs.136

DCIT, Circle- 13(2), New Delhi vs. Jmw India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4271/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Vs Jmw India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-13(2), 309, Vikas Deep Building, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, Delhi. – 110 092. Pan: Aaacj3260C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Anand, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Parul Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 08.03.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No. Del/Cit(A)-5/0368/2016-17 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Dcit, Circle-13(2), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. Heard & Perused The Record. The Ld. Dr Submitted That The Order Of The Cit(A) Is Erroneous As Without Examining The Use Of Subsidy Amount Reliance Was Placed On The Judgement Of The Hon’Ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court In The Case Of Shri Balaji Alloys & Others, 333 Itr 335 (J&K). It Was Submitted That The Cit(A) Was Supposed To Examine The Question Of Utilization Of The Subsidy In The Light Of The Judgement Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Limited, 306 Itr 392 (Sc). The Ld. Ar, However, Relied The Order Of The Cit(A) & Submitted That The Cit(A) Has Not Taken Into Consideration The Judgement Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Sahney Steel & Press Works Limited Vs. Cit (1997) 228 Itr 253 (Sc).

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Parul Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

been held that the A.O could not consider a claim for deduction in a situation where the assessee had failed to file the revised return in time. As per the record, the appellant did not file an appeal against the rebuttal of its claim that the interest subsidy

M/S Goyal Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Circle-4, Ludhiana

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

ITA 864/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A), Ludhiana & Thereafter The Matter Was Transfer To Nfac, Delhi Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed On Statistical Ground Without Considering The Merits Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 292B

Delhi dt. 08/12/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed its revised return of income declaring total income of Rs. 90,57,129/- which was processed by the CPC, Bangalore and thereafter, order under section 154 r.w.s

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Radha Madhav Investments Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3341/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

declaring total income of Rs. 6,33,44,790/– and book profit of Rs. 9,41,64,555/– u/s. 115JB of the Act. Revised return of income was filed by it on 19.02.2019, declaring total income again of Rs. 6,33,44,790/– but book profit

M/S. Punyabhoomi Welfare Service Society, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 528/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Varis Isani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

part of the assessee in filing in the column for claiming deduction in the return of income. It was submitted that no revised return was filed by the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee should not be punished for a procedural lapse on the part of the assessee ... There is an error committed by the assessee which is admitted by the assessee. It is also true that the assessee has not filed revised return of income , but at the same time the department authorities are obligtated to assess the correct Income and to collect correct taxes under

Sagar Subhash Wedhane, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

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

ITA 191/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.191/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sagar Subhash Wedhane, Vs. Ito, Nashik. 75, Midc, Bosch Limited, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aavpw1338A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak : Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.01.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs.1,61,548/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Under-Reporting In Consequence Of Mis-Reporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

For Appellant: Smt. Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)

assessee at Rs.11,14,480/-. Simultaneously penalty proceedings u/s 270A was also initiated because there was difference in assessed income & income shown in revised return. Assessee furnished reply to penalty notice but being unsatisfied the Assessing Officer vide order dated 22-08-2023 imposed penalty of Rs.1

Anjappan Maruthapandian, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 463/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.461/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.462/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.463/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Anjappan Maruthapandian Dcit बनाम/ No.7/2, Jp Towers Central Circle-1(3), Nungambakkam High Road Chennai-34. Vs. Chennai-600 034 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajspm-1309-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.Venkat Raman & Shri V. Padmanaban (Cas)- Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkat Raman & Shri V. PadmanabanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 69

assessee in return filed u/s 153A. The only reason adduced is that return u/s 153A could not be filed below the regular revised return filed by the assessee. However, regular return itself has been treated as invalid return. Therefore, the return filed by the assessee in response to notice issued

Anjappan Maruthapandian, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 462/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.461/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.462/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.463/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Anjappan Maruthapandian Dcit बनाम/ No.7/2, Jp Towers Central Circle-1(3), Nungambakkam High Road Chennai-34. Vs. Chennai-600 034 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajspm-1309-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.Venkat Raman & Shri V. Padmanaban (Cas)- Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkat Raman & Shri V. PadmanabanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 69

assessee in return filed u/s 153A. The only reason adduced is that return u/s 153A could not be filed below the regular revised return filed by the assessee. However, regular return itself has been treated as invalid return. Therefore, the return filed by the assessee in response to notice issued

Anjappan Maruthapandian, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 461/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.461/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.462/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.463/Chny/2024 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Anjappan Maruthapandian Dcit बनाम/ No.7/2, Jp Towers Central Circle-1(3), Nungambakkam High Road Chennai-34. Vs. Chennai-600 034 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajspm-1309-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R.Venkat Raman & Shri V. Padmanaban (Cas)- Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkat Raman & Shri V. PadmanabanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 139Section 153ASection 270ASection 69

assessee in return filed u/s 153A. The only reason adduced is that return u/s 153A could not be filed below the regular revised return filed by the assessee. However, regular return itself has been treated as invalid return. Therefore, the return filed by the assessee in response to notice issued

Anjappan Kandasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 460/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.459/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.460/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Anjappan Kandasamy Dcit बनाम/ #89/1, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Central Circle-1(3), Vs. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqpk-2230-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkat Raman & Shri V. Padmanaban (Cas) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkat Raman & Shri V. PadmanabanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69A

assessee admitted income of Rs.41.02 Lacs in its return of income filed on 17-03-2020 which was Rs.4.39 Lacs less than regular revised return filed by the assessee for this year on 31- 03-2016. The same was on account of re-working of capital gains ... also submitted that return filed u/s 153A replaces the original return filed u/s 139. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the regular revised return filed on 31- 03-2016 was treated as invalid by CPC since the same was filed beyond due date

Anjappan Kandasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 459/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.459/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.460/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Anjappan Kandasamy Dcit बनाम/ #89/1, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Central Circle-1(3), Vs. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqpk-2230-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Venkat Raman & Shri V. Padmanaban (Cas) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-06-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkat Raman & Shri V. PadmanabanFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 69A

assessee admitted income of Rs.41.02 Lacs in its return of income filed on 17-03-2020 which was Rs.4.39 Lacs less than regular revised return filed by the assessee for this year on 31- 03-2016. The same was on account of re-working of capital gains ... also submitted that return filed u/s 153A replaces the original return filed u/s 139. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the regular revised return filed on 31- 03-2016 was treated as invalid by CPC since the same was filed beyond due date

Muthiah Shanmugam, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward - 3, Vellore

In the result the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 345/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.345/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2020-21 Muthiah Shanmugam Income Tax Officer, No.1/245, Arapakkam Village, Ward-3, Vellore. Bapsu Nagar, Walaja Tk, Arapakkam, Vellore. [Pan: Aanps3951R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 80CSection 80G

Rs.8,59,500/- and interest on borrowed capital Rs.1,98,000/-. The assesse was requesting for release of refund on account of the revised return. However, upon receipt of notices during scrutiny proceedings, the assesse submitted that he is withdrawing the claim made in the revised return. The AO concluded ... that filing of revised return was apparently done with malafide intentions to defraud the Revenue and proceeded to add claimed deduction under Chapter-VI A of Rs.8,59,500/- and interest on borrowed capital Rs.1,98,000/- to the returned income. In appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) noted that there