← 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

DCIT 19.1, Mumbai vs. Chhaya Dinesh Vora, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3846/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

return of income filed u/s. 139(1) and accordingly, he treated the entire difference of credit shown in the original return and the revised return of Rs.4,96,05,517/- as unexplained credit which has been added u/s.68. 4. The ld. CIT(A) after perusing the entire details furnished ... Rs.11,94,45,763 Rs.16,90,51,280 Difference- RS. 4,96,05,517 Since this difference is returned by the taxpayer in the revised return of income filed in response to section 148 this is taken as explanation for deposits/withdrawals

Siemens Technology and Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 725/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am Siemens Technology & Services Dy. Cit 8(2)(1) Private Limited Mumbai Plot No. 2, Sector 2, Kharghar, Vs. Node, Navi Mumbai- 410 210

For Appellant: Shri Jeet KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali
Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 3Section 92C

Maintain service chain. The assessee had filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs.138,58,33,060/- and had filed a revised return of income dated 09.12.2016 and 26.03.2018, with no change in the total income. The assessee’s case was then selected for scrutiny and notice

Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1157/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1157/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. ………. Appellant (Pan: Aaacs1425L) Vs. Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata ……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Sm. Lata Goyal, Aca Appeared For Appellant Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent . Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 29.04.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 05.09.2023 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S. 154 R,W,S, 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Dated 12.07.2022. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), [Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Cit(A)] Was Not Justified & Grossly Erred In Not Granting The Interest U/S. 244A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act').

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)Section 250

concerned, he stated that this refund is arising out of TDS credit available with the assessee. He stated that as per revised return finally furnished on 30.03.2019 the TDS credit was Rs.75,14,12,726/- and the refund granted by the AO vide rectification order dated ... lower authorities and stated that the assessee has revised a return on multiple occasions. There had been reference to TPO, and also in the revised return furnished on 30.03.2019 the assessee had claimed refund of only Rs.2,89,36,036/- and it was only on account

ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs. Ateeq Ahmed, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 5096/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5095 & 5096/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. Sh. Ateeq Ahmed Circle-59(1), 306/7, Iiird Floor, Delhi Aditya Complex, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aeipa7958R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

assessment proceedings. (c) If the contention of the assessee is accepted that it was a clerical mistake, it could have been rectified by filing revised return within due time but he has not done so. (d) That the assessee admitted his mistakes when specific questions were asked and material

ACIT Circle-59(1), New Delhi vs. Ateeq Ahmed, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 5095/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5095 & 5096/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. Sh. Ateeq Ahmed Circle-59(1), 306/7, Iiird Floor, Delhi Aditya Complex, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aeipa7958R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80Section 80I

assessment proceedings. (c) If the contention of the assessee is accepted that it was a clerical mistake, it could have been rectified by filing revised return within due time but he has not done so. (d) That the assessee admitted his mistakes when specific questions were asked and material

Balwinder Singh Bajwa, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sunam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

assessee is because, the assessee has not disclosed the sale proceeds of the land sold in the original return of income. Whereas, in the revised return of income filed in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 153 A of the Act, the assessee has offered the amount received from sale

Johnson Abraham Kolabgathu, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

ITA 4266/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: or at the time of hearing in the matter.”

For Appellant: Ms. Vidhi PunamiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon
Section 143(3)Section 69A

Bank transfers/NEFT. The Original Return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 was e-filed on 26/03/2018 which was revised on 13/12/2018. In the revised return the Appellant declared total income of INR 5,46,240/- after claiming deduction of INR 1,13,481/- under Chapter

Jagdish Soni, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 30/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vishnu Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 80CSection 80T

Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) wherein it was held that the assessee cannot claim deduction other than by filing of revised return. In this case the appellant has not claimed deduction of Rs.1,50,000/- u/s. 80C, deduction of Rs. 10,000/- u/s. 80TTA and also ... standard deduction of Rs.50,000/- by filing the revised return of income. Therefore, the ground Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 of appeal taken by the appellant are dismissed.” 4 Jagdish Soni vs. DCIT 6.1. Ground No. 5 right of the appellant to argue other grounds at the time of hearing

Vipul Vasant Patil, India vs. CPC, Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing System of Income Tax Department

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

ITA 3974/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vipul Vasant Patil, The Asst. Director Of Heramb Kophrad Income-Tax, Centralized Umbergothan, Agashi, Vs. Processing Centre, Income Virar (W) Tax Department, Palghar-401 301. Bengaluru-560 500. Pan No. Apjpp 7462 H Appellant Respondent : Mr. Abdulkadir Jamsadwala Assessee By Revenue By : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Dr

For Respondent: Mr. Abdulkadir Jamsadwala
Section 139(1)Section 234BSection 90

Appellant has claimed the credit of on the ground that the Appellant has claimed the credit of foreign taxes paid only in the revised return of income and foreign taxes paid only in the revised return of income and foreign taxes paid only in the revised return of income ... same was furnished alongwith the revised fact that the same was furnished alongwith the revised fact that the same was furnished alongwith the revised return of income and hence the action of the CIT(A) return of income and hence the action of the CIT(A) return of income

Maulikaben Anantkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1013/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble

For Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr. DR

income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 31.08.2018 declaring loss of Rs.95,900/- and agricultural income of Rs.62,83,468/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return on 31.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs.95,900/- and agriculture income of Rs.70,78,468/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The AO observed that

Sanjaybhai Ranchhodbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1225/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 14ASection 153ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 69

processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Year: 2011-12 Page 2 of 4 Act, 1961 on 25.04.2012. Thereafter, a revised return was field on 11.01.2013 showing total income of Rs.16,37,210/-. The revised income was on account of capital gain of Rs.25,44,449/- which

M/S. Humara India Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 33, Kolkata

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

ITA 135/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Humara India Credit Acit, Circle-33, Co-Operative Society Limited Kolkata 101, 227/2 Mangal Jyoti Vs Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata- 700020. Pan: Aaaah 8186 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

Supreme Court has decided in the Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) that such revision can be done only through revised return of Income during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the AO's decision in this regard is partially confirmed. As decided by various cases quoted above

Chandrasekhar Nudurumati, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

order dated 19.2.2018, the CIT(Appeals) recorded these facts in para 5 of his order that Mr. Nagesh Shastry was instrumental in filing the revised return. However, the same facts and arguments in the penalty proceedings are not considered by the CIT(Appeals). In our opinion, it is proper ... record. In the quantum proceedings, the assessee accepted the addition because he was misled by Mr. Nagesh Shastry who was instrumental in fling the revised return of the assessee making false claims. However, the same facts and arguments in the penalty proceedings are not considered. In our opinion

Chandrasekhar Nudurumati, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

order dated 19.2.2018, the CIT(Appeals) recorded these facts in para 5 of his order that Mr. Nagesh Shastry was instrumental in filing the revised return. However, the same facts and arguments in the penalty proceedings are not considered by the CIT(Appeals). In our opinion, it is proper ... record. In the quantum proceedings, the assessee accepted the addition because he was misled by Mr. Nagesh Shastry who was instrumental in fling the revised return of the assessee making false claims. However, the same facts and arguments in the penalty proceedings are not considered. In our opinion

Chandrasekhar Nudurumati, Telangana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 324/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

order dated 19.2.2018, the CIT(Appeals) recorded these facts in para 5 of his order that Mr. Nagesh Shastry was instrumental in filing the revised return. However, the same facts and arguments in the penalty proceedings are not considered by the CIT(Appeals). In our opinion, it is proper ... record. In the quantum proceedings, the assessee accepted the addition because he was misled by Mr. Nagesh Shastry who was instrumental in fling the revised return of the assessee making false claims. However, the same facts and arguments in the penalty proceedings are not considered. In our opinion

Shri R V Shah Charitable Trust, Bhavnagar vs. The Dy.DIT, CPC, Bengaluru Current Jurisdiction the ITO, Exemp., Bhavnagar

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

ITA 257/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Apr 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2022-23 Shri R V Shah Charitable Trust The Dy. Director Of Income C/O. Madhu Silica Pvt.Ltd. Vs Tax, Cpc 147, Gidc, Vartej Bengaluru Bhavnagar 364 060 (Current Jao : Ito (Exempt), Gujarat Bhavnagar Pan: Aaets 0593 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. S. Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 19/01/2024 Passed By The Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai [“Jcit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Is A Charitable Trust & Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2022-23 On 17/10/2022 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,48,175/-. The Said Return Was Processed By Cpc Bengaluru U/S.143(1) Of The Act On 03/03/2023 & Income Was Determined At Rs.13,64,912/-. This Was Due To Denial Of Exemption U/S.10(23C) Of The Act By The Cpc. The Assessee Had Filed An

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri C. S. Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(iv)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 246ASection 250

section 119 of the Act. (c) For making the claim of exemption u/s 11, the appellant was either required to file the Revised return or if time for revision is not available, make a claim before the competent authority (Pr. CIT) for condonation of delay. In the instant case ... India) Ltd. vs Cit (2006) 284 ITR 323 has held that the assessee can amend a return filed by it only by filing a revised return. In this case the appellant has not filed any revised return. ITA No.257/Ahd/2024. Shri R.V. Shah Charitable Trust vs. ITO Asst.year

Shri Kiran Yashwant Latkar, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward(13)(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 509/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.509/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(2)

individual who filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 13.07.2017 declaring income of Rs.17,57,980/-. Thereafter, the appellant filed revised return on 28.07.2019 declaring same income. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory notice 2 u/s.143(2) was issued. The Assessing Officer

Dhanuka Agritech Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1401/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

assessee that such mistake in declaring excessive taxable income will not operate as any kind of estoppel against the assessee regardless of whether any revised return was filed or not and regardless of the fact that whether such new claim was made before the AO in the course of assessment ... these decisions are that mere admission on the part of the assessee with respect to an addition/disallowance in its original return or in revised return would not ipso facto bar an assessee from claiming an expense or disputing an income, if it is otherwise permissible under law. It is thus

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune, Swargate vs. Grupo Antolin India Private Limited, Pune

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

ITA 1118/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1118/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Dhanraj Dangi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Akhilesh Srivastava [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246A(1)Section 250Section 253(2)Section 92C

ordinate bench’s decision in assessee’s own case for earlier years allowed the appeal and deleted the TP adjustments. In effect the revised returned loss been reinstated. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 6 DCIT Vs Grupo Antolin India Pvt. Ltd. 2.5 Aggrieved by the aforestated adjudication the Revenue impugned

Vikash Daga, Gurghaon vs. DCIT, Circle 3(1), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1812/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2018-19 Vikash Daga, Vs Dcit, D-022, The Belaire, Circle 3(1), Golf Course Road, Gurgaon. Dlf V, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002. Pan: Adipd4214E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjeev Kachhal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.04.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.05.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Nfac/2017-18/10084687 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), By The Ito, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kachhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 90

that the assessee being an individual Indian citizen filed his return of income on his global income that was taxable in India. The revised return of income was e-filed on 05.02.2019 declaring total income of Rs.13,07,98,810/- which included income earned in USA and claimed foreign