← 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

Madhuchampaklal Charitable Trust, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 575/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 575/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Madhuchampaklal Income Tax Officer, Charitable Trust, Vs. Ward 1(Exemptions) Harikunk, Ahmedabad. Opposite C.N Vidyalaya, Ambawadi-380006. Pan: Aaatm3257B

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K Mangla, Sr.DR
Section 11Section 11(2)

present case, it is an admitted position that the assessee had filed Form No.10 as required under rule 17 of the Rules alongwith the revised returns filed in respect of all the assessment years under consideration. Thus, admittedly, the forms had been submitted before the assessment came to be completed ... above decision, as noticed earlier, the assessee filed Form No. 10 under rule 17 of the Rules at the time of filing revised returns in respect of each of the assessment years under consideration. Thus, evidently, the requirements of section 11(2) of the Act had been complied with before

Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(1), Btmc Building vs. Hemantha Raju, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the CO by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 993/BANG/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Apr 2024

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillia, Judiial Member & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Srinath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 144Section 69A

condone the delay in filing the CO by the assessee. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed revised return of income on 08.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,88,670. The case was selected for scrutiny for examination of ‘high value receipt of cash

Mohd Sarwar, Raghavendra Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Karimnagar

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

ITA 238/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Mohd. Sarwar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2-8-306/12, Raghavendra Ward – 2, Nagar, Waddepalle, Karimnagar. Hanamkonda, Warangal, Telangana - 506370. Pan : Aoups2364F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. Vamseedhar, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Mookambikeyan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri A. Vamseedhar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mookambikeyan, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 156Section 156(1)Section 250Section 270A

needs to be quashed.” 2 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee had claimed refund of Rs.2,21,980/- by filing revised return of income on 26.07.2018 declaring reduced income of Rs.6,46,520/- as against original return filed on 12.07.2018 declaring total income of Rs.14 ... present case, Assessing Officer noticed that the total T.D.S. claimed as per revised return was Rs.2,65,037 as against Rs.2,50,037/- claimed in original return. Hence, notice u/s.142(1) was issued to the assessee on 26.10.2020 along with a detailed questionnaire. 3.1. During the course of assessment proceedings

Shri Nagjibhai Kuberbhai Kheni, Bhavnagar vs. Asst Unit, I Tax Dept. ( Income Tax Officer Ward 1(9) Bhavanagar ), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 862/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)

respect to the above proceedings initiated in his case. The Income tax return revision time limit had already expired and I am unable the revised return in case of Shri. Nagjibhai Kuberbhal Kheni for the FY 2019-20. I confirm that the said error was inadvertent and was owing

Sh. Martin Ekka S/O Sh. Lalsay Ekka, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward -1, Panchkula

In the result, the ground no

ITA 281/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

Division is proposed to be closed down. Tax was deducted at source on compensation received at the time of VRS Appellant by way of revised return claimed that the said compensation is exempt under Second proviso and first explanation of Section 10(108) of Act. For this appellant placed reliance

Thikariya Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Thikariya vs. AO Cpcito Ward Sikar, Sikar

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

ITA 772/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 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. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com

Motherson Sumi Systems Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2054/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 108(4)Section 10BSection 10B(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 271(1)(e)Section 92D

Court in the case of Wipro Limited (supra) was whether a taxpayer can withdraw its claim of deduction under section 10B by filing a revised return or in the course of assessment which has no bearing on the facts of the present case. The Ld. DR has relied on this

Dignity of Girl Child Foundation, Jaipur vs. Exemption Ward-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 682/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)

main reason for delay is as follows:- After receiving the order assessee has consulted his counsel and stated that we shall file the revised return and we write an application to AO to rectify the above mistake and counsel file online rectification which has been rejected ... with its counsel but the Trust failed to file the appeal in time. Alternatively, the assessee would have filed the condonation letter for filing revised return to the concerned PCIT and after getting approval assessee assessee could file the revised return but the assessee failed to do so. The case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 201/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.191/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2009-10) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.193/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.200/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Tax, Circle-1, Range-1, Administrative Office Building, Visakhapatnam. Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530001. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(2)Section 143(3)

original return of income for the AY 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 1,82,82,63,380/- on 30/09/2009. Thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee admitting a total income of Rs. 1,76,21,10,290/- on 22/03/2010. The case was selected ... original return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 25/09/2014 declaring a loss of Rs. 38,62,09,102/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 28/03/2016 admitting total loss of Rs.(-) 35,40,03,341/-.The case was selected for scrutiny

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 200/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.191/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2009-10) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.193/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.200/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Tax, Circle-1, Range-1, Administrative Office Building, Visakhapatnam. Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530001. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(2)Section 143(3)

original return of income for the AY 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 1,82,82,63,380/- on 30/09/2009. Thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee admitting a total income of Rs. 1,76,21,10,290/- on 22/03/2010. The case was selected ... original return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 25/09/2014 declaring a loss of Rs. 38,62,09,102/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 28/03/2016 admitting total loss of Rs.(-) 35,40,03,341/-.The case was selected for scrutiny

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 193/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.191/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2009-10) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.193/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.200/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Tax, Circle-1, Range-1, Administrative Office Building, Visakhapatnam. Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530001. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(2)Section 143(3)

original return of income for the AY 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 1,82,82,63,380/- on 30/09/2009. Thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee admitting a total income of Rs. 1,76,21,10,290/- on 22/03/2010. The case was selected ... original return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 25/09/2014 declaring a loss of Rs. 38,62,09,102/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 28/03/2016 admitting total loss of Rs.(-) 35,40,03,341/-.The case was selected for scrutiny

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 191/VIZ/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.191/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2009-10) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.193/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.200/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Tax, Circle-1, Range-1, Administrative Office Building, Visakhapatnam. Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530001. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(2)Section 143(3)

original return of income for the AY 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 1,82,82,63,380/- on 30/09/2009. Thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee admitting a total income of Rs. 1,76,21,10,290/- on 22/03/2010. The case was selected ... original return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 25/09/2014 declaring a loss of Rs. 38,62,09,102/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 28/03/2016 admitting total loss of Rs.(-) 35,40,03,341/-.The case was selected for scrutiny

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. M/S. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 125/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.191/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2009-10) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.193/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.200/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Tax, Circle-1, Range-1, Administrative Office Building, Visakhapatnam. Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530001. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(2)Section 143(3)

original return of income for the AY 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 1,82,82,63,380/- on 30/09/2009. Thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee admitting a total income of Rs. 1,76,21,10,290/- on 22/03/2010. The case was selected ... original return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 25/09/2014 declaring a loss of Rs. 38,62,09,102/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 28/03/2016 admitting total loss of Rs.(-) 35,40,03,341/-.The case was selected for scrutiny

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 106/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.191/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year :2009-10) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.193/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Circle-1(1), Andhra Pradesh-530001. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.200/Viz/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Tax, Circle-1, Range-1, Administrative Office Building, Visakhapatnam. Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh-530001. Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 142(2)Section 143(3)

original return of income for the AY 2009-10 declaring total income of Rs. 1,82,82,63,380/- on 30/09/2009. Thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee admitting a total income of Rs. 1,76,21,10,290/- on 22/03/2010. The case was selected ... original return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 25/09/2014 declaring a loss of Rs. 38,62,09,102/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 28/03/2016 admitting total loss of Rs.(-) 35,40,03,341/-.The case was selected for scrutiny

Kolaparthy Suvarna Lakshmi, Nellore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 595/HYD/2023[A.Y.2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Kolaparthy Suvarna Lakshmi, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nellore. Central Circle – 1, Nellore. Pan : Agupk4977A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

assessment year 2016-17, Rs.11,50,000/- for the Assessment Year 2017- 18 as additional incomes in the respective asst. years and file revised returns and I will offer Rs.28,50,500/- at higher side towards regular income for the assessment year 2018-19 in the firm Sri Raja Rajeswari

Ces Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Ces Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcs4564P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 154Section 37(1)Section 90

declaring total income Rs.10,51,37,110/- and a refund of Rs. 4,65,570/- Thereafter on 26.03.2021, the assessee has filed the revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act by declaring total income of Rs. 10,51,37,110/- and claimed a refund

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1066/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 234BSection 271ASection 69

income was the same as that which was declared in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on 13.09.2014 and revised return of income filed on 26.09.2016. During the course of search proceedings at the residence of Shri K M Deekshith at the office ... income was the same as that which was declared in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on 13.09.2014 and revised return of income filed on 26.09.2016. During the course of search proceedings at the residence of Shri K M Deekshith at the office

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

income was the same as that which was declared in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on 13.09.2014 and revised return of income filed on 26.09.2016. During the course of search proceedings at the residence of Shri K M Deekshith at the office

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

income was the same as that which was declared in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on 13.09.2014 and revised return of income filed on 26.09.2016. During the course of search proceedings at the residence of Shri K M Deekshith at the office

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1063/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 234BSection 271ASection 69

income was the same as that which was declared in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act on 13.09.2014 and revised return of income filed on 26.09.2016. During the course of search proceedings at the residence of Shri K M Deekshith at the office