← 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

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 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

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 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

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

DCIT-19(1), Income Tax vs. Pavan Kumar B Chandan (E-Filed), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2594/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 68

filed his return of income for AY. 2014-15 was filed on 29.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 29,23,137/-. And filed revised return and claimed Exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act, at Rs 2,05,52,685/-. Later on, the case of the assessee was selected

Mohammed Badsha Laskar, Secunderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 89/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.89/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Shri Mohd.Badsha Laskar Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Secunderabad Central Circle 3(1) Pan: Acqpl8311F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.DR
Section 132ASection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69A

statutory notices u/s 143(2) dated 21.2.2022 was issued along with notice u/s 142(1) calling for certain information. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 31.03.2022. 5. During the course of assessement proceedings, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to substantiate the source for the cash ... action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he also dismissed the ground challenging the non-issue of notice u/s 143(2) for the revised return of income filed by the assessee. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

The Krishna District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited, Machilipatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle1(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.45/Viz/2024 (निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2017-18) The Krishna District Cooperative Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Central Bank Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Machilipatnam-521001. Vijayawada. Pan: Aabtt 0343 T (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थीकीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, Ar प्रत्यधर्थीकीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri K. Siva Ram Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 40Section 68

Banking Regulation Act, 1949 filed its return of income admitting a total income of Rs. 21,52,57,740/- and also has filed a revised return of income admitting the same income on 8/6/2018. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices

Primasonic Spectrum Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 20(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1465/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1465/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Primasonic Spectrum Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Vs. Ward-20(1), 66, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, C.R. Building, Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Aafcp0243E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 91

However, mistakenly Form No. 67 was not filed along with original return. The assessee rectified this defect by filing revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act on 12.10.2020 along with Form No.67. The CPC-Bangalore processed the revised return vide intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated ... without allowing claim for foreign tax credit u/s 91 of the Act even though the assessee filed Form 67 along with the revised return filed on 12.09.2020. 3. We observe that identical issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Neeta Garg Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2337/Del/2023

Bumi Hiwat (India) P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), New Delhi

ITA 4933/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2004-05 Bumi Hiwat (India) P. Ltd., Vs Dcit, A1/292, Pankha Road, Circle-5(1), Janakpuri, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 058. Pan: Aahca4306R Pan: Aabcb5995M

For Appellant: Ms Sashi M. Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Sunita Verma, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 254Section 274

revised later on along with the audited balance sheet and profit & loss account. The assessment, therefore, is to be made on the basis of revised return and the disallowance of loss cannot be made on the ground that there was a wide disparity between the two balance-sheets prepared which ... explained by the assessee. It is a claim of loss in the revised return which was filed and determined as per the books of account of the assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT (Appeals) as well as the Assessing Officer and remit the matter back

East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. Dc/ACIT Central Circle- 1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 236/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 40Section 43B

Department issued defect notice u/s.139(9) of the Act on 10.04.2019 on account of failure to annex audit report. The assessee filed revised return u/s.139(5) of the Act on 19.10.2019 along with audit report in Form No.3CD and revised computation of income declaring loss at Rs.4 ... u/s.143(3) of the Act that the AO has wrongly adopted computation filed originally and not considered the revised computation filed by way of revised return of income on 19.10.2019 along with tax audit ITA Nos.235 & 236/Chny/2023 report in Form No.3CD. The CIT(A) confirmed the various disallowances and gave

East Coast Consturctions & Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. Dc/ACIT Cnetral Cricle- 1(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 235/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 40Section 43B

Department issued defect notice u/s.139(9) of the Act on 10.04.2019 on account of failure to annex audit report. The assessee filed revised return u/s.139(5) of the Act on 19.10.2019 along with audit report in Form No.3CD and revised computation of income declaring loss at Rs.4 ... u/s.143(3) of the Act that the AO has wrongly adopted computation filed originally and not considered the revised computation filed by way of revised return of income on 19.10.2019 along with tax audit ITA Nos.235 & 236/Chny/2023 report in Form No.3CD. The CIT(A) confirmed the various disallowances and gave

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3695/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3695/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) National Stock Exchange Of बिधम/ Dcit-Circle-7(1)(1) India Room No.126, 1St Floor, Vs. Exchange Plaza, Bandra Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra Road, Churchgate, East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn1797L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Shailesh S. Shah Shri Vijay Bhatt Revenue By: Shri S. Srinivasu (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/03/2024 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 17.08.2023 For Ay. 2016-17. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Passed U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Wherein He Increased The Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act By Making An Adjustment Of Rs.7,61,52,00,000/- [Statutory Contribution Towards Core Settlement Guarantee Fund (Core Sgf)] By Holding That Such A Contribution To Core Sgf Is To Meet An Unascertained Liability.

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 37(1)

case of the assessee was 2 A.Y. 2016-17 National Stock Exchange of India selected for scrutiny; and pursuant to notice, the assessee filed revised return of income of Rs.408,40,30,220/- on 31.03.2018. And thereafter, the AO disallowed lease premium amortized to the tune of Rs.1

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle5(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Larsen & Toubro Limited ( Formerly Known As L & T Shipbuilding Limited ), Mumbai

ITA 2350/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Larsen & Toubro Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Central Circle-5(4), As L & T Shipbuilding Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Limited), Vs. Air India Building, L&T House, Nariman Point, N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400021 Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacl0140P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, D.R
Section 48(1)Section 50B

scheme of order dated 16.03.2020 and 24.04.2020 respectively passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). It is also not in dispute that revised return filed by the assessee M/s. Larsen & Toubro Shipbuilding Ltd. on 28.03.2018 to include the capital gain/loss on slump sale in accordance with the scheme ... Larsen & Toubro Limited framing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) has not considered the revised return filed by the assessee M/s. Larsen & Toubro Shipbuilding Ltd. on 28.03.2018. It is also not in dispute that the AO has not considered

Addl CIT R G 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India Ltd ( Formerly Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd. ), Mumbai

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

assess the assessee's income vested with the Dy. CIT/the Asstt. CIT pursuant to which the assessee had filed its return including the revised return of income with them. The intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was issued by them and the notices under section

Ashwani Talwar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2868/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaashwani Talwar, Vs. Ito, C/O. Advocate Deepak Ward-7(1), Kapoor, 59, Nehru New Delhi Apartments, Outer Ringh Road, Kalkaji, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaapt0920E

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 74

carry forward can only be considered in A.Y. 2014-15, when the assessee claimed the carry forward in A.Y. 2014-15. By accepting the revised return for A.Y. 14-15, the department accepted the right of the assessee to carry forward the STCL. The vested right of the assessee ... original return filed dated 31-07-2014 for A.Y. 2014-15. It has been held in plethora of legal cases that the revised return replaces the original return and the original return having been admittedly filed within the time allowed under section 139(1), the loss, will have

Koomber Properties & Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cpa. Bangalore., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 1250/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250

mistake has put the blame on CPC and have filed 154 petition, e grievance and appeal. The actual remedy was to file a revised return correcting mistakes immediately or file a petition u/s 264 requesting the CIT to set aside the return and file a fresh return ... assessed. This aspect may not have been entertained by the ld. Assessing Officer in the garb of non- filing of the revised return, but the ld. 1st Appellate Authority could always take cognizance of this aspect and correct the same. We find that it is just a technical error committed

Chimera Industrial and Development Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed in the terms

ITA 2332/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

For Appellant: a) Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 declaring a total loss of Rs. 12.01 crores. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 29.3.2017 declaring the very same loss of Rs. 12.01 crores. The return of income of the assessee was taken

Chimera Industrial and Development Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Mumbai

ITA 2331/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

For Appellant: a) Disallowance of depreciation on goodwill
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 declaring a total loss of Rs. 12.01 crores. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 29.3.2017 declaring the very same loss of Rs. 12.01 crores. The return of income of the assessee was taken

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Upaid Systems Ltd

ITA/627/2023HC Delhi18 Mar 2024

Bench: The Ao By The Assessee. This Is A Digitally Signed Order. The Authenticity Of The Order Can Be Re-Verified From Delhi High Court Order Portal By Scanning The Qr Code Shown Above. The Order Is Downloaded From The Dhc Server On 01/04/2024 At 14:07:24

income, the assessee did not have the benefit of the Valuation Report of the expert, which was available to him subsequently. Hence, filing of revised return of income was necessitated. In absence of contrary material brought on record by the Revenue to finalize the aforesaid claim of the assessee ... delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of royalty. In other words, the Royalty income offered by the assessee in the revised return of income should be accepted. Grounds are allowed.” 5. It is the aforesaid observations which appear to have fallen for adverse comment, albeit

Ranisati Hosiery (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1278/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1278/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranisati Hosiery (P) Ltd…….….…………............…...……………....Appellant Siddha Weston, Room No.126, 9, Weston Street, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Aafcr2959B] Vs. Pcit-4, Kolkata…………..….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 31, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 18, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 12.03.2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. As Per The Note Of The Registry, The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1722 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed Which Is Further Supported With The Affidavit Of Shri Bhupendra Bansal, Director Of The Assessee Company. It Has Been Explained That The Impugned Order Dated 12.03.2019. That The Copy Of The Order Was Not Served Upon The Assessee. That The Assessee Came To Know About The Passing Of The Impugned Order Only After The Receipt Of The Subsequent Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act. The Assessee

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

revision order passed by the ld. PCIT. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company e-filed its revised return of income on 18-03-2013 declaring nil total income. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS citing the reason “large share premium received

Lupin Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 77/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Ms. Manju Thakur, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

book profits of Rs. 17,28,95,82,575/- under section 115JB of the Act. The assessee filed the revised return of income on 27.11.2014 revising the income under the normal provisions to Rs. 11,81,81,76,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were ... years in the books of accounts beginning from AY 2010-11. The assessee claimed the depreciation on the goodwill through a note to the revised return of income. The AO denied the depreciation by relying on the decision of Goetz India Ltd. (284 ITR 323) stating that the assessee

Asstt. CIT -Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Lupin Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in I

ITA 1241/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Ms. Manju Thakur, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

book profits of Rs. 17,28,95,82,575/- under section 115JB of the Act. The assessee filed the revised return of income on 27.11.2014 revising the income under the normal provisions to Rs. 11,81,81,76,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were ... years in the books of accounts beginning from AY 2010-11. The assessee claimed the depreciation on the goodwill through a note to the revised return of income. The AO denied the depreciation by relying on the decision of Goetz India Ltd. (284 ITR 323) stating that the assessee