“revised return”

Sunil Ramesh Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 17(3)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 1199/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2013-14) Sunil Ramesh Gupta Vs. Ito-17(3)(4) 31, Sahakar Building Room No. 123 B Road, Churchgate 1St Floor Mumbai-400 020. Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Pan : Aabpg3465A Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Smt. Madhura Karpe Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 13.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi Am 1. This Appeal Is Filed By Mr. Sunil Ramesh Gupta For Assessment Year 2013 – 14 Against The Appellate Order Of Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Kolkata (The Learned Cit – A) Dated 17/1/2024 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 18Th/3/2016 Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By The Income Tax Officer – 17 (3) (4), Mumbai Was Partly Allowed. 2. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Appellate Order & Has Preferred Appeal For The Solitary Ground That The Learned Cit – A Confirmed Denial Of Deduction Of Rs. 1,936,390/– Of Interest Under Section 24 (B) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 To The Assessee. 3. Assessee Is An Individual Proprietor Of Two Proprietary Concerns, Carrying On Job Works Of Axle India Ltd, Filed His Return Of Income On 5/8/2013 At Total Income Of Rs. 710,760/–. Return Was Picked Up For Scrutiny & Notice Under Section 143 (2) Was Issued On 5/9/2014. Page 1 Of 4

departmental representative vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities stating that there is no claim in the return of income as well as revised return is not filed therefore no fault can be found with the orders of the lower authorities. 9. We have carefully considered the contentions

Mohammed Iqbal Mulla, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer 11(1)(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result all the grounds of appeal are allowed with above direction

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 4808/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2016-17) Mohammed Iqbal Mulla Vs. Ito-11(1)(1) 601/701, Atlantis, Seven Aayakar Bhavan Bungalow, Andheri West M.K. Road Maharashtra-400 061. Churchgate Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaepm2197E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rishab Jain Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By Mr. Mohammad Iqbal Mulla, ( The Assessee Appellant) Against The Appellate Order Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2016 – 17 On 30/10/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 27/12/2018 Passed By The Income Tax Ofc, Ward – 11 (1) (2), Mumbai (The Learned Ao) Wherein The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs. 1,655,770/– On Account Of Addition Of Salary Income, Unsecured Loan Under Section 68, Advanced Against Sale Of Agricultural Land Under Section 68 & Agricultural Income , Total Addition Amounting To Rs. 5,401,802/–, Was Dismissed. 2. Therefore, The Assessee Is Aggrieved With The Appellate Order & Has Preferred To Appeal Raising Grounds Against All The Additions Confirmed. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Show That The Assessee Is An Individual & Director In Cities In World Travels Private Limited & Messes Present Page 1 Of 6

27/12/2018 determining total income of the assessee at Rs. 1,655,770/– on this the returned income of the assessee as per revised return of Rs. 653,970/–. 8. Assessee aggrieved preferred appeal before the learned CIT – A contesting all the above for additions. The learned CIT – A in paragraph

Tata International Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

case are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 29,92,43,293/-. Subsequently a revised return was filed on 29.03.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 29,47,10,980/-. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice

Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed except the issue relating to reopening, which is treated as academic

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am

arise in this case as the assessee was entitled to file the audit report before the completion of the assessment with or without a revised return for the purpose of curing the defect in the original return filed without the audit report." 4.7. Respectfully following the observations

Income Tax Officer-22(1)(6), Mumbai vs. Ahuja Tower Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed, while the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

learned CIT(A) further held that claim of deduction at this stage would require regularisation of the relevant return of income by filing revised return of income for which the time has elapsed. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the interest income of Rs.30,19,574 is not eligible ... grant any relief to the assessee on the basis that claim of deduction on the interest income of Rs.30,19,574 would require a revised return of income for which the time has elapsed. 18. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz India

Ahuja Tower Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Jurisdiction Ward 22(1)(6), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

learned CIT(A) further held that claim of deduction at this stage would require regularisation of the relevant return of income by filing revised return of income for which the time has elapsed. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) held that the interest income of Rs.30,19,574 is not eligible

Johnson & Johnson Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Add/JCIT (A)-5 Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

considered on account of Inadvertent error made while filing the Income Tax Return. 3. erred in holding that deduction can be claimed by filing revised return without appreciating the fact that time limit of filing revised return has already passed.” 3. The brief facts of the case as emanating from ... entertain a fresh claim made by the assessee, even if such a claim was not made in return of income or by way of revised return of income. 7. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the provisions of section 80P of the Act under which the assessee