“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

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

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

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

Ram Partap, Noida Uttar Pradesh vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 723/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 80DSection 80G

assessee filed original return of income on 08.09.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 26,10,070/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return on 23.03.2021 claiming refund of Rs. 11,10,340/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3)/144B

Anurag Dikshit, C/O Ernst and Young LLP vs. Centralised Processing Centre of Income Tax Department, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3888/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalanurag Dikshit, Vs. The Income Tax Officer C/O Ernst & Young Llp (It)2(1)(1), Air India 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Building, Nariman Point, Dadar West, Maharashtra Mumbai - 400021 400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aeepd3232M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari & Bhumik Vasa Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Of Hearing 05.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-56, Dated 21.09.2023 For A.Y. 2021-22. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit(A), On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred In Not Assessing The Correct Income Of The Appellant By Holding That The Learned Ao Had No Power To Reduce The Income Offered By The Appellant. 2. The Learned Cit(A), On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Erred In Not Reducing The Corresponding Rent Income Of Inr 32,54, 155 From The Returned Income Of Ay: 2021-22, While Disallowing The Corresponding Tds Credit Of Inr 13,77,757 Claimed In The Return Of Income. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Vary, Omit, Substitute Or Amend Any Or All Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal, At Any Time Before Or At, The Time Of The Appeal, So As To Enable The Hon'Ble Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal To Decide This Appeal According To Law.”

For Appellant: Nikhil Tiwari &For Respondent: Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 154

26AS has been brought on record after the due date of filing return of income which was 31.12.2021, therefore, the assessee cannot file any revised return and the CPC should have made changes at both level in respect of reduced rental income along with reduced TDS amount. The ld. Counsel ... Rs.7,24,04,940/- was shown in the order passed by the CPC. The assessee has explained before the ld. CIT(A) that no revised return can be filed since the new 26AS form was brought on record after due date of filing the return of income which

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT(It) 2 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1683/MUM/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleorder Per S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) 1. These Cross Appeals Are Filled By The Assessee & Revenue Against Different Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai (Hereinafter In Short "Ld.Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018 For The A.Ys.2002-03 & 2003-04. 2. Since The Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Identical, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Disposed Off By This Consolidated Order. Revenue Appeals

Section 195Section 28Section 9(1)(v)

ITA NO.1407 & 2936/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2002-03 & 2003-04) Asst. CIT (I.T)- 4(2)(2) Room No. 1624, 16th Floor Air

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Eicher Motors Limited, Delhi

ITA 3721/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

grossly erred on facts and in law in holding that the deduction of ESOP expenditure claimed otherwise than by filing a revised return of return cannot be considered by assessing officer ('AO')/CIT(A) and that the appellant ought to have taken recourse of the specific remedy available under section ... facts and in law in holding that the AO was right in not considering the said additional claim made otherwise than by filing revised return of income, without appreciating that Assessing Officer is empowered to allow additional claims/relief not claimed in the return of income in view of circular No.14

Eicher Motors Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 7(1) New Delhi, New Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 35

Sanjeev Kumar Goyal, Hapur vs. ITO Ward-3(5), Hapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3186/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14 Sanjeev Kumar Goyal Vs. Ito Ward-3(5) 607, Railway Road, Hapur. Patel Nagar, Hapur Uttar Pradesh 245101 Pan Aatpg1790N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

declared. In terms of percentage it worked out to 11.37% whereas as per tax audit report filed along with the revised return on gross turnover of Rs. 17,89,07,251/- net profit of Rs. 6,34,500/- was declared which worked out to 0.35%. During assessment proceedings ... have perused the record. It is observed from the assessment order that apart from the audit report which was furnished along with the revised return the assessee had submitted details during the course of assessment proceedings. It is from those details that the Ld. AO found that in the trading

India Medtronic P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/Asstt/CIT/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal ground

ITA 1335/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

year in which the income was first assessable; (b) one year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under sub-section

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Hyderabad vs. Tkr Educational Society, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 511/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. Tkr Educational Society, Of Income Tax, 16-2-751/A/31/Ctirumala (Exemptions), Hills, Malakpet, Hyderabad. Hyderabad, Telangana – 500036. Pan : Aaaat7850Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri M. Vijay Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Vijay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(C)Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 801B

addition ofRs.39,62,55,162/-. 3. The Ld.CIT(A),NFAC erred in not considering the facts that the assessee has failed to file revised return of income for correct claim of exemption u/s.10(23C)(vi) of the I.T Act, 1961 before completion of assessment.” 3. The brief facts ... raised, to which the assessee failed to reply in time. Despite the request of assessee to accept the exemption claim as inadvertent, since no revised return was filed on the e-filing portal or as per Section 139(5) of the IT Act before the end of the relevant assessment

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Sushee Prasad Jv, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 457/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Sushee Prasad Jv, Hyderabad, Income Tax, Circle – 6(1), Plot No.246/A/2, Road Hyderabad. No.12, Mla Colony, Banjara Hills, Telangana – 500034. Pan : Aapas3540R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sesha Srinivas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sesha Srinivas, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40a

assessee had filed the original return for A.Y. 2020-21 on 08.02.2021 declaring loss of Rs. 40,00,275 and then filed a revised return of income on 26.03.2021 declaring loss of Rs. 64,94,51,745. Thus, the assessee filed the revised return of income ... there is no denial that the taxes are deposited by the assessee in the subsequent assessment years, for that the assessee had filed the revised return of income and had claimed the deduction as mentioned by the ld.DR . 22 15. For the purposes of invoking the benefit of section

Idfc First Bank Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT-Corp Circle-2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 776/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 14A

made before AO during the course of assessment proceedings but it was not claimed while filing the return of income i.e., original or revised return but neither AO nor CIT(A) has considered these two claims on the reasoning that the assessee is barred from making these two claims ... Income for the Assessment Year 2016- 17 on 17.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 5,21,30,22, 090/-. The appellant subsequently filed a revised return of income on 29.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 5,17,05,43,27O/-. This is an admitted fact that the appellant has made

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/284/2019HC Delhi07 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited

Sds Metals (I) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 99/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Sds Metals (I) Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Hyderabad. Ward –3(1), C/O. P. Murali & Co., Hyderabad. Chartered Accountants, 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda, Telangana – 500082. Pan : Aascs1826P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Krishna, C.A. Revenue By: Shri B. Yadagiri, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.03.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2017-18 Arises From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dt.18.09.2023 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Krishna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

against the provisions of law and principles of natural justice. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the revised return filed u/ s 139(5) dated 30.03.2019 by the assessee makes the original return non-existent and no action can be taken against non- existent ... principles of natural justice. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the AO erred in ignoring the statutorily filed Revised Return of Income u/ s 139(5), without considering or examining the accounts as per the revised ROI which is invalid

Sanjeev Kumar Goel, Hapur vs. ITO Ward-3(5), Hapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3187/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14 Sanjeev Kumar Goyal, Vs. Ito, 607, Railway Road, Ward-3(5), Patel Nagar, Hapur, Hapur. Uttar Pradesh 245 101 Pan Aatpg1790N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that as per the copy of audited P & L Account furnished with revised return, the gross receipts were Rs. 17,89,07,251/-. Since the assessee had failed to get his account audited u/s 44AB of the Act, proceedings u/s 271B ... perused the records. It is revealed from the assessment order dated 22.03.2016 that the assessee filed Tax Audit Report dated 04.08.2013 along with the revised return on 17.06.2014 which has been duly considered. Para 3 of the assessment order refers. In para 4 of the assessment order

M/S Enria Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT. Central Circle - 3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1167/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

income admitted by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act, has been accepted. In the revised return filed u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee has admitted taxable income of Rs.2,55,35,485/- which is higher than the last return filed

M/S Enrice Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 2Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(9)

Chhotelal Gangaprasad Dubey, Mumbai vs. ACIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3728/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhchhotelal Gangaprasad Vs. Acit 24(1) Dubey, 1005, Blue 6Th Floor, Piramal Mountain, Shastri Nagar, Chambers, Lalgaug, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400013 Mumbai – 400 058 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaepd9496P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Aditya Maheshwari Respondent By : S. Arunkumar Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Dated 30.08.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Upholding Action Of Income Tax Officer Of Adopting Deemed Rent Of Let Out Property At Rs.10,23,000 Without Considering The Facts That Property Was Not Lying Vacant. Due To Acute Financial Problem At The End Of Tenant, Rent Could Not Be Recovered. More Over The Tenant Has Also Not Claimed Any Expenses On Account Of Rent For The Same. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Erred In Upholding Actions Of Income Tax Officer Without Considering Written Submissions & Details Filed By The Ar Of Assessee On 24Th November 2022.” 2. Fact In Brief Is That Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,50,770/- Was Filed On 27.10.2018. The Revised Return Of Income

For Appellant: Aditya MaheshwariFor Respondent: S. Arunkumar

Section 143(2)Section 23Section 23(1)Section 23(4)Section 23(4)(C)

24th November 2022.” 2. Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs.10,50,770/- was filed on 27.10.2018. The revised return of income P a g e | 2 Chhotelal Gangaprasad Dubey Vs. ACIT-24(1) was filed on 29.03.2020. The case was subject to scrutiny

Dipti Srivastwa, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-34(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1422/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1422/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dipti Srivastwa Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 34(3), Kolkata Room No. 422, Centre Point 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani 4Th Floor Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Biqps1509F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre - Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/10/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.89,10,000/-. 2. That The Appellant Had Already Stated That The Said Figure Was Erroneously Shown & Even The Facts As Admitted By The Ld. Cit(Appeal) Confirm That There Was No Such Income. 3. That The Additions Made Are Against Law & Facts. 4. That The Appellant Prays For Deleting The Additions Made.

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(2)Section 250

find any merit in the said claim as he was of the view that the assessee should have filed revised return or revised his claim before the Assessing Officer when the case was selected for scrutiny. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal ... scrutiny by the income tax department. Thereafter, the assessee failed to appear before the ld. Assessing Officer. The assessee even failed to file a revised return. Though the ld. CIT(A) has not given any relief to the assessee, we, however, considering the facts of the case and the affidavit

DCIT, Central Circle 30, New Delhi vs. Prakash Industries Ltd, Hissar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1929/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd. Central Circle 30 15 Km Stone Delhi Road, New Delhi Hisar, Haryana – 125044 Pan No.Aabcp6765H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. P N Barnwal, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Ms. Ayushi Gupta, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 29/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi Dated 21.04.2023 Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Grievance Of The Revenue Read As Under :-

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153ASection 154Section 234Section 234B

need a special mention here. The findings read as under :- “21. Thus, it is clear that when the A.O. has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed under Section 139 of the Act. For all purposes ... assessee, which incidentally gives him an opportunity to make good omission, if any, in the original return. Once the A.O. accepts the revised return filed under Section 153A, the original return under Section 139 abates and becomes non-est. Now, it is trite to say that the "concealment

DCIT, Central Circle 30, New Delhi vs. Prakash Industries Ltd, Hissar

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1928/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 234B

income of Rs. 1,27,96,45,721/- u/s 115JB of the Act. 7. On the date of filing of the return and revised return of income, law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kwality Biscuits Limited 284 ITR 519 was prevailing wherein ... assume jurisdiction for introducing a new issue while giving appeal effect to the order of the appellate authority. 12. The Assessing Officer processed the revised return on 31.03.2010 u/s 143(1) of the Act wherein he charged interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. This intimation was challenged before

DCIT, Central Circle 30, New Delhi vs. Prakash Industries Ltd, Hissar

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1927/DEL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT- DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 234B