← 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

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1356/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Without prejudice to Ground 1 2. Ld. PCIT erred in not Condoning the delay in filing of revised return u/s 119 (2)(b) of the Act for assessment year 2017-18 without considering that the conditions mentioned in para 6 of CBDT Circular ... returns of income for AY 2017-18 to AY 2022-23 expired. Hence, the assessee requested for condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1355/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Without prejudice to Ground 1 2. Ld. PCIT erred in not Condoning the delay in filing of revised return u/s 119 (2)(b) of the Act for assessment year 2017-18 without considering that the conditions mentioned in para 6 of CBDT Circular ... returns of income for AY 2017-18 to AY 2022-23 expired. Hence, the assessee requested for condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1354/PUN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Without prejudice to Ground 1 2. Ld. PCIT erred in not Condoning the delay in filing of revised return u/s 119 (2)(b) of the Act for assessment year 2017-18 without considering that the conditions mentioned in para 6 of CBDT Circular ... returns of income for AY 2017-18 to AY 2022-23 expired. Hence, the assessee requested for condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1353/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Without prejudice to Ground 1 2. Ld. PCIT erred in not Condoning the delay in filing of revised return u/s 119 (2)(b) of the Act for assessment year 2017-18 without considering that the conditions mentioned in para 6 of CBDT Circular ... returns of income for AY 2017-18 to AY 2022-23 expired. Hence, the assessee requested for condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Pricipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1352/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Without prejudice to Ground 1 2. Ld. PCIT erred in not Condoning the delay in filing of revised return u/s 119 (2)(b) of the Act for assessment year 2017-18 without considering that the conditions mentioned in para 6 of CBDT Circular ... returns of income for AY 2017-18 to AY 2022-23 expired. Hence, the assessee requested for condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Pennar Industries Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 78/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.48/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Pennar Industries Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Aabcp3074H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.78/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Asstt. Cit Vs. Pennar Industries Ltd Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcp3074H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Mohd. Afzal राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/02/2024 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

manufacturing of steel and filed its return of income on 25.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.45,63,06,740/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act on 11.06.2018 admitting the same income. The return was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory

Pennar Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 48/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.48/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Pennar Industries Ltd Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 5(1) Pan:Aabcp3074H Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.78/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ) Asstt. Cit Vs. Pennar Industries Ltd Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabcp3074H (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Advocate Mohd. Afzal राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/02/2024 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Advocate Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: : Shri Waseem Ur Rehman, DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

manufacturing of steel and filed its return of income on 25.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.45,63,06,740/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act on 11.06.2018 admitting the same income. The return was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory

Arrdy Enginnering Innovations (P) Ltd, Rourkela vs. The ACIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/VIZ/2012[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)(ia)Section 40

income on 01/11/2005 admitting a total income of Rs. 3,74,72,380/- for the AY 2005-06. Thereafter the assessee filed a revised return of income revising the income to Rs. 3,75,63,580/-. While filing the return of income, the assessee has claimed weighted deduction ... Lakhs. The amount has been claimed U/s. 35(1) of the Act 8 as deduction by the assessee while filing the revised return of income. The pleading of the Ld. AR is that the actual expenditure which was not disputed by the Revenue and which is certified by the Ministry

Arrdy Engineering Innovatins (P) Ltd, Rourkela vs. The ACIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/VIZ/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)(ia)Section 40

income on 01/11/2005 admitting a total income of Rs. 3,74,72,380/- for the AY 2005-06. Thereafter the assessee filed a revised return of income revising the income to Rs. 3,75,63,580/-. While filing the return of income, the assessee has claimed weighted deduction ... Lakhs. The amount has been claimed U/s. 35(1) of the Act 8 as deduction by the assessee while filing the revised return of income. The pleading of the Ld. AR is that the actual expenditure which was not disputed by the Revenue and which is certified by the Ministry

Maithan Alloys Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 1347/KOL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 1347/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Maithan Alloys Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 4Th Floor, Ideal Centre Vs Circle-1(1), Kolkata 9, Ajc Bose Road Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aabcm7758B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2024 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. 29/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Lower Authorities Erred In Denying The Claim Of Deduction U/S 80M Of The Act Towards Inter-Corporate Dividends At Rs.19,48,050/-. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That In The Income Tax Return (Itr) Originally Filed As Well As Subsequently Revised, The Assessee Did Not Make The Claim Of Deduction U/S 80M Of The Act For Inter-Corporate Dividend. However, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, This Claim Was Raised & On The Strength Of The Judgement Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Reported In [1998]

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Kejriwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 250Section 80JSection 80M

Assessment Year 2021-22. It is also an uncontroverted fact that the assessee did not make the claim in the original as well as revised return. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, this claim has been made. Though the ld. D/R has referred to the judgment ... case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra), as per which the Assessing Officer cannot entertain the claim otherwise than made by way of a revised return, however, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. (supra) and Jute

Escorts Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 792/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: PendingITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadm/S. Escorts Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 3, 11, Scindia House, New Delhi. Connaught Circus, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaace0074B) Dcit, Central Circle 3, Vs. M/S. Escorts Limited, New Delhi. 11, Scindia House, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR

share capital of the appellant in EHIRCL on sale of which capital gain has been taxed by the AO though not offered in the revised return by the appellant. This action of AO has been upheld also by undersigned. The A.O. has also not disputed/denied that services were rendered

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Escorts Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1313/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadm/S. Escorts Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 3, 11, Scindia House, New Delhi. Connaught Circus, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaace0074B) Dcit, Central Circle 3, Vs. M/S. Escorts Limited, New Delhi. 11, Scindia House, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT DR

share capital of the appellant in EHIRCL on sale of which capital gain has been taxed by the AO though not offered in the revised return by the appellant. This action of AO has been upheld also by undersigned. The A.O. has also not disputed/denied that services were rendered

Kamal Enterprises and New Life Hospital, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

business income claiming full depreciation on the assets, including building and equipment for the entire year; whereas in the revised return, the assessee claimed lease and receipt as income from house property to claim 30% standard deduction under section 24 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and also

Lic Mutual Fund Asset Management Limited, Opp Churchgate Station vs. CIT(A), North Block

In the result, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed

ITA 2824/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.2824/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2013-14) Lic Mutual Fund Asset Management Ltd. 4Th Floor, Industrial Assurance Building, Charchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacj-1166-H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Cit(A), North Block, North Block, New Delhi 110 001. ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.A.R सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 26/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 22/06/2023, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Three Grounds. The Gist Of Issues Raised In Appeal By The Assessee Is As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.A.R
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]; and (iii) Non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, after revised return of income was filed by the assessee, thus making the assessment order bad in law. 3. Shri Vijay Mehta appearing on behalf ... filed original return of income on 29/11/2013. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act on 05/09/2014. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 31/03/2015. The Assessing Officer without issuing fresh notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act completed the assessment vide order dated 18/03/2016

DCIT 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1809/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. K. Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit Circle – 3(3)(1), R. No. 609, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. Small Industries Development Bank Of India Sme Development Centre, C-11, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 Pan – Aabcs3480N ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Kishor Dhule, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Kabra, Ld. AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 36(1)

book profit under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act vide dated: 29.09.2015. During the assessment proceedings itself, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 14.02.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 1505, 38, 12,270/- and Rs. 1912, 58, 92,986/- respectively. Original assessment order

Supermax Personal Care P. Ltd., Thane vs. Dy CIT -3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in above terms

ITA 687/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Gupta & Shri AjinkyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. DR
Section 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 92C

against the returned income of INR 19,54,43,820/- disclosed under the normal provisions of the Act in the revised return filed by the Appellant. Addition on account of transfer pricing adjustments General 2. erred in making an adjustment of INR 49,33,80,333 to the total income ... against the returned income of INR 22,45,33,750/- disclosed under the normal provisions of the Act in the revised return of income filed by the Appellant. Addition on account of transfer pricing adjustments General 2. Erred in making an adjustment

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 209/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

claim of assessee i.e., increase in computation of capital loss, claimed at assessment stage only by way of filing a letter instead of revised return of income. For this, Revenue has raised the following ground Nos.2 to 5:- 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in allowing assessee's appeal without ... been held that- an assessee can not amend a return fled by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return? 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing assessee's appeal by relying

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 208/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

claim of assessee i.e., increase in computation of capital loss, claimed at assessment stage only by way of filing a letter instead of revised return of income. For this, Revenue has raised the following ground Nos.2 to 5:- 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in allowing assessee's appeal without ... been held that- an assessee can not amend a return fled by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return? 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing assessee's appeal by relying

ACIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 207/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

claim of assessee i.e., increase in computation of capital loss, claimed at assessment stage only by way of filing a letter instead of revised return of income. For this, Revenue has raised the following ground Nos.2 to 5:- 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in allowing assessee's appeal without ... been held that- an assessee can not amend a return fled by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return? 4. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing assessee's appeal by relying

R P Soonawala Family Trust, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-19(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3078/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआ.अ.सं.3078/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2018-19) R P Soonawala Family Trust 121, Khushnuma Chs, Carmicheal Stores, Pedder Road, Mumbai – 400026 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Pan: Aadtr1540F बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 19(3), Room No. 206, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Parel, Mumbai – 400012

For Appellant: Shri Manish RankaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

appeal before the CIT(A). He submitted that appeal of the assessee was dismissed merely for the reason that the assessee did not file revised return of income and appeal of the assessee in pursuance to assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act for the impugned Assessment Year ... assessee received intimation u/s 143(1) on 29.6.2019. By the time the assessee received aforesaid intimation, the time for filing revised return of income had already expired. The assesse realized its mistake in offering long term capital gain to tax only on receipt of intimation