← 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

Mkr Trading Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 16(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 9285/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kamaljot Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 120Section 143(1)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

assessee, formerly known as M/s Saggi Tracsxim Pvt Ltd, filed its original return of income on 07.07.2009 declaring NIL income. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income declaring income of Rs. 2,885/- which was processed u/s 143(1). Subsequently, information was received from Investigation Wing that Shri Vishal

Santipur Thana Co-Operative Agricultural Marketing Society Ltd., Nadia vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 135/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)Section 80P

filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file revised return making such claim, its claim for deduction under section 80-IA is maintainable. Therefore, where assessee had filed return under section ... entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IA even if such claim was not made in original return but subsequently in revised return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A. 7.4 We note that the instant case, there was a few-month delay in filing the return

Jatrapur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Nadia vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 134/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)Section 80P

filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file revised return making such claim, its claim for deduction under section 80-IA is maintainable. Therefore, where assessee had filed return under section ... entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IA even if such claim was not made in original return but subsequently in revised return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A. 7.4 We note that the instant case, there was a few-month delay in filing the return

Deepak Shimoga Padmaraju, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, Advocate byFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 90

claimed FTC of Rs. 4,73,779/- u/s. 90 of the Act read with Article 24 of India Australia tax treaty ("DTAA") in a revised return of income filed on 31.8.2018. The Assessee had not filed the Form 67 before filing the return of income. On realising the same ... Assessee filed Form 67 in support of claim of foreign tax credit on 18.04.2020. The revised return of income was processed by Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) electronically and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.05.2020 was passed disallowing the claim of FTC. 5. The Assessee filed a rectification

Sai Service Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1075/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1074 & 1075/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sai Service Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-10, Mumbai Pune Road, Vs Pune Phugewadi, Pune 411 012 Maharashtra Pan : Aabcs4998M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare– Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak- Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On 04.09.2023 & 18.09.2023 Respectively For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since Some Grounds Of Appeal Are Common In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. We Are Discussing A.Y.2017-18 Hereonwards.

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

regards the claim u/s.80G of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee did not claim such deduction either in original return or revised return within the prescribed time limit. Assessee did not upload any documents to substantiate its claim, thus eventually dismissed this claim as well. 6. Aggrieved

Sai Service Private Limited, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1074/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1074 & 1075/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sai Service Private Limited, Dcit, Circle-10, Mumbai Pune Road, Vs Pune Phugewadi, Pune 411 012 Maharashtra Pan : Aabcs4998M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare– Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak- Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) In The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) On 04.09.2023 & 18.09.2023 Respectively For Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19. Since Some Grounds Of Appeal Are Common In All These Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of These Appeals By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. We Are Discussing A.Y.2017-18 Hereonwards.

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80G

regards the claim u/s.80G of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) held that the assessee did not claim such deduction either in original return or revised return within the prescribed time limit. Assessee did not upload any documents to substantiate its claim, thus eventually dismissed this claim as well. 6. Aggrieved

ACIT Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M B Patil Construction Limited, Mumbai

ITA 98/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40Section 44A

MIPL. iii. The original return of income was not revised even though the assessment proceedings were pending. The last date for filing the revised return was 31.03.2008, after the amalgamation order came into operation. iv. A search and seizure proceeding was conducted in respect of the Mahagun group, including

M/S M.B.Patil Constructions Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 303/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40Section 44A

MIPL. iii. The original return of income was not revised even though the assessment proceedings were pending. The last date for filing the revised return was 31.03.2008, after the amalgamation order came into operation. iv. A search and seizure proceeding was conducted in respect of the Mahagun group, including

Sindhudurg Zilla Madhyamik Va Uchha Madhyamik Shikshak Va Shikshketar Karmachari Patsanstha Ltd, Sindhudurgnagari Kudal vs. Income Tax Officer Kudal, Kudal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 968/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.968/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sindhuurg Zilla Madhyamik Va The Income Tax Officer, Uchha Madhyamik Shikshak Va V Kudal. Shikshketar Karmachari S Patsanstha Ltd., Plot No.33, Sindhudurgnagari, Kudal Dist, Sindhudurg. Maharashtra – 416812. Pan: Aagas6518L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak, Irs – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.08.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Dated 21.04.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(f)

appellant had inadvertently claimed u/s 80P(2)(f) in its return under section 139(1) but had rectified the mistake by filing a revised return. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above ground of appeal or raise ... income instead of claiming deduction under section 80P(2)(a) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Assessee claimed that the assessee had filed revised return of income. However, it appears from the Order of the Ld.CIT(A) that copy of the impugned Revised return was not filed before

Sri Sravan Kumar Neela, Nalgonda vs. ACIT Central Circle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 899/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

Maheshwara Rao Chinni & Anr. v. Asst. CIT amend his return, a legal document bearing his verification, is by filing a revised return, which is in fact impermissible in reassessment proceedings. The return stands filed on 12.10.2018, i.e., over two years after the seizure of cash on 19.07.2016, followed by depositions

Sri Uma Maheshwara Rao Chinni, Guntur vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 895/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

Maheshwara Rao Chinni & Anr. v. Asst. CIT amend his return, a legal document bearing his verification, is by filing a revised return, which is in fact impermissible in reassessment proceedings. The return stands filed on 12.10.2018, i.e., over two years after the seizure of cash on 19.07.2016, followed by depositions

Jai Parkash, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1675/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2018-19 Jai Parkash, Vs. Principal Commissoiner Of Bhattu Road, Income Tax, Rohtak Near Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad – 125050 Haryana (Pan: Amypk5328D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

assessee was selected through CASS for verification of the following issues viz. Deductions from Income from other sources; reduction of income in revised return and claim of refund and refund claim. The AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 916/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.915 & 916/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.06, S.No.16/3/1, V Nashik. Samarth Bungla, Near S Modakeshwar Mandir, Modakeshwar Nagar, Kamatwade, Nashik – 422010. Pan: Aakpv1138N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Both Dated 15.02.2023, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act Dated 19.01.2022 & 20.01.2022 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. Since Issue Involved Is

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(10)

filed on 13.07.2017 assessee had claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs.1,98,602/- which was increased to Rs.3,52,500/- by filing the Revised Return of Income. The facts emerging from the Assessment Order are tabulated as under: Return of Date of return Total income Deduction Income filed declared ... claimed in the return Rs.1,98,602/- Original return 13.07.2017 Rs.7,55,900/- Rs.1,58,817/- Revised return 28.08.2017 Rs.8,64,630/- Rs.3,52,500/- Revised return 28.11.2017 Rs.4,02,000/- Rs.1,60,818/- Return filed in Response to 13.3.2020 Rs.8,73,080/- notice u/s 148 3. The Assessing Officer

Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, Kamatwade vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 915/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.915 & 916/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.06, S.No.16/3/1, V Nashik. Samarth Bungla, Near S Modakeshwar Mandir, Modakeshwar Nagar, Kamatwade, Nashik – 422010. Pan: Aakpv1138N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Both Dated 15.02.2023, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act Dated 19.01.2022 & 20.01.2022 For A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. Since Issue Involved Is

Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(10)

filed on 13.07.2017 assessee had claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs.1,98,602/- which was increased to Rs.3,52,500/- by filing the Revised Return of Income. The facts emerging from the Assessment Order are tabulated as under: Return of Date of return Total income Deduction Income filed declared ... claimed in the return Rs.1,98,602/- Original return 13.07.2017 Rs.7,55,900/- Rs.1,58,817/- Revised return 28.08.2017 Rs.8,64,630/- Rs.3,52,500/- Revised return 28.11.2017 Rs.4,02,000/- Rs.1,60,818/- Return filed in Response to 13.3.2020 Rs.8,73,080/- notice u/s 148 3. The Assessing Officer

V.K.Nanavaty Share and Stock Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2614/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2614/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) V. K. Nanavaty Share & बिधम/ Ito, Ward-4(2)(4) R. No. 647, 6Th Floor, Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd Vs. R-709, Rotunda Building, Aaykar Bhavan, Bombay Stock Exchange, Maharishi Karve Road, M. S. Marg, Fort, Mumbai- Churchgate, Mumbai- 400023. 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv9670N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravikant Pathak Revenue By: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 30.05.2023 For Ay. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Validity Of The Reopening By Ao (Jurisdiction) U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). So The Legal Issue Is Taken Up First.

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Return of Income was successfully processed. Thereafter, the case was selected under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has filed the revised return declaring total loss of Rs (-) 45.84,819/-. The order u/s 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 23.03.2015 wherein ... loss of the assessee company is accepted as per revised return of income. 2. Information has been received from Investigation Wing, Mumbai vide letter no. DDIT(Inv)6(2)/Information/VAS/2018-19 dated 13.02.2019, in respect of penny stock company wherein it was investigated that the assessee has traded into penny stock

Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 253/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT reported in 42 taxmann.com 54 where penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the income offered by revised return after the same was accepted by the assessee in the survey proceedings. 4.1 Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particular ... income before the survey team after incriminating material found during the survey and accordingly offered the same by revising original return of income, but revised return was not accepted as same was non est. On the other hand, no such income was admitted during the search or detected based

Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 252/AHD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT reported in 42 taxmann.com 54 where penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the income offered by revised return after the same was accepted by the assessee in the survey proceedings. 4.1 Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particular ... income before the survey team after incriminating material found during the survey and accordingly offered the same by revising original return of income, but revised return was not accepted as same was non est. On the other hand, no such income was admitted during the search or detected based

Dharmenbhai Mahendrabhai Sutaria, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 251/AHD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT reported in 42 taxmann.com 54 where penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the income offered by revised return after the same was accepted by the assessee in the survey proceedings. 4.1 Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particular ... income before the survey team after incriminating material found during the survey and accordingly offered the same by revising original return of income, but revised return was not accepted as same was non est. On the other hand, no such income was admitted during the search or detected based

DCIT (E), New Delhi vs. M/S Software Technology Park of India, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2516/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S. Software Technology Parks Vs. Dcit Of India, Circle-31(1) 9Th Floor, Ndcc-Ii Bldg. New Delhi. Opposite Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. Pan Aaats2468J (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Dcit (E) Vs. M/S. Software Technology Circle-2(1) Parks Of India, New Delhi. 9Th Floor, Ndcc-Ii Bldg. Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 001 Pan Aaats2468J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

case was selected for scrutiny. Notice under section 143(2) dated 14.09.2012 was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return on 28.03.2013 declaring income of Rs. 126,07,02,604/-. Statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee. 12. During ... activities (Rs. 1,36,85,223/-) and income from interest (Rs. 35,44,88,168/-) under the head “income from business” whereas in the revised return the said incomes have been considered under the head “income from other sources”. This was not acceptable to the Ld. AO for the reasons

M/S Software Technology Parks of India., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2415/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S. Software Technology Parks Vs. Dcit Of India, Circle-31(1) 9Th Floor, Ndcc-Ii Bldg. New Delhi. Opposite Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. Pan Aaats2468J (Appellant) (Respondent) Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Dcit (E) Vs. M/S. Software Technology Circle-2(1) Parks Of India, New Delhi. 9Th Floor, Ndcc-Ii Bldg. Jai Singh Marg, New Delhi-110 001 Pan Aaats2468J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Sangeeta Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

case was selected for scrutiny. Notice under section 143(2) dated 14.09.2012 was issued and served upon the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return on 28.03.2013 declaring income of Rs. 126,07,02,604/-. Statutory notices along with questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee. 12. During ... activities (Rs. 1,36,85,223/-) and income from interest (Rs. 35,44,88,168/-) under the head “income from business” whereas in the revised return the said incomes have been considered under the head “income from other sources”. This was not acceptable to the Ld. AO for the reasons