“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

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Viral Saraf Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1843/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – Central Circle – 2(2) V. Viral Saraf Mittal Room No. 806, 8Th Floor 901/902, Capri Heights Old Cgo Annex Building Palli Hill, Bandra (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Azbps0317C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Sidharth Kothari Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68

entries of nearly Rs. 40 cores have voluntarily surrendered it for taxation without any further enquiry. v) Some of the assessee's have filed revised return since the enquiry and have taken back their claim of exemption and many of their have disclosed there transaction as undisclosed income under income

Saic Motor Overseas Intelligent Mobility Technology Co . Ltd., Shanghai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Hsiidc Building

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

ITA 2194/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 270ASection 9(1)(vi)

assessee e-filed its return of income on 09.02.2021 declaring income of Rs. 18,79,80,560/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed its revised return of income on 28.05.2021 declaring NIL income and claimed refund of Rs. 18,79,80,560/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny

Presidency Kid Leather Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-5(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1524/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1524/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. S. Vidhya, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 154

assessee has claimed the same in the revised computation of total income instead of filing of revised return. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. On further appeal, the ITAT, vide order in ITA No. 1836/Mds/2016 dated 23.09.2016 remitted the issue

Itd Cementation India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1401/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dcit Itd Cementation India Ltd. Central Circle 5(1) 9Th Floor, Prima Bay, Room No.1928, 19 Th Floor, Tower-B, Gate No.5, Air India Building, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 072 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact1426A Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ramkrishna Bandi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ramkrishna Bandi, CIT DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80I

dividend distribution tax of ₹24,89,192/-, which was disallowed as assessee did not claim the same in the return of income or by revised return relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India

Aark Infosoft Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 681/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Aark Infosoft Private Limited, The Acit, 45, Shetrunjay, 2Nd Floor, Above Circle-1(1)(1), Central Bank Of India, Bhattha Ahmedabad Cross Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380007 Pan : Aahca 9986 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Divyang Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 27.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act? 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Making Disallowance Of Employees' Contribution To Pf & Esic Of Rs.5,51,657/- U/S 36(1) (Va) Of The Act?

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 269SSection 36(1)Section 40Section 68

having furnished a return under sub-section (1) or sub- section (4), discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment ... pursuance of a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, discovers any omission or wrong statement in such return, he can furnish a revised return within the time provided therein. Thus, sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act contemplates filing of a return of income, sub-section

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2, Ajmer

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

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

The Commissioner of Income Tax - International Taxation -3 vs. Tge Gas Engineering Gmbh

ITA - 125 / 2024HC Delhi20 Feb 2024

Section 144C(13)

made under the due process of law as such claim was not made originally in the Return of Income or through a revised Return for the purposes of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”]? 2.2 Whether the ITAT has erred in allowing the carry forward of business losses without appreciating ... total income or before any appellate authorities and any claim which not originally claimed in the Return of Income or by way of revised Return within the prescribed time limit is not allowable under the Act? 4. However, Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal has restricted

Andhara Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Ltd, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

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

ITA 117/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.117/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Corporation Ltd. Income Tax Prohibition & Excise Complex, Circle-1(1) Rsno.88/2B, Saivihar Apartments Guntur Poultry Farm Road Prasadampadu, Vijayawada [Pan : Aanca8537G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)

Section 144

income for the A.Y.2020-21, declaring an income of Rs.23,88,23,830/- on the basis of provisional accounts. Later, the assessee filed a revised return of income, declaring an income of Rs.9,05,07,580/- along with audit report. The retail trade was entrusted to the assessee from ... Form 6 duly filled up. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have appreciated that the Appellant Corporation could not have filed a revised return in the 5 I.T.A. No.117/Viz/2023, A.Y.2020-21 Andhra Pradesh State Beverages Corporation Ltd.,Vijayawada income tax portal as the time for filing the return

Annaswamy Sekhar, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-4, Coimbatore

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1000/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1000/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Annaswamy Sekhar Dcit बनाम 33, Krishna Colony, Singanallur, Non-Corporate Circle-4, / Vs. Coimbatore-641 005. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajups-1902-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri H. Yeswanth Kumar (Ca)-Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Final Hearing : 06-02-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-02-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri H. Yeswanth Kumar (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 80I

intimation u/s.143(1) on 15.04.2019. 7. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant had filed the revised return of income within the due date specified u/s.139(5) of Income Tax Act, which substituted the original return of income. 8. For that the Commissioner ... against ROI reference number filed on 01.40.2017 CPC/1718/G21/180943003 6 dated 14.05.2018 6 Date of filing voluntary 26.05.2018 1. Acknowledgement for filing of 25 revised return of income Income Tax Return taken from Income Tax E-filing portal 2. Screenshot from E-filing portal showing the status of ROI filed

Mohan Lal Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 746/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 54

hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the cases are that, the assessee filed return of income declaring at Rs. 94,02,280/- on 30/10/2017 thereafter revised return declaring total income of Rs. 1,04,01,920/- was filed on 30/03/2019. In the return of income, the assessee had offered

Nitrex Chemicals India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-18(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5664/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

leave to add, alter or amend any grounds at the time of hearing.” 2. Facts, in brief, are that the assessee filed its revised return declaring total income at Rs. 14,55,96,240/- on 31.03.2016. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and the assessment

Free India Broking Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CPC, Bangaluru, Bengaluru

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

ITA 3553/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalfree India Broking Vs. Acit, Cpc Services Pvt Ltd, Incometaxdepartment, 108, Prime Plaza, Electronic City, Jv Patel Compound, Post Office, Elphistone (W), Bangalore -560100. Mumbai-400013 Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf5729Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Subodh Ratnaparkhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

brief facts of the case that, the assessee is a Private Limited Company and is engaged in the business. The assessee has filed the revised return of income for the A.Y 2010-11 on 31.10.2011 disclosing a total income ‘Nil’. Subsequently, the return of income was processed by Free India

Power and Energy Consultants India Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3420/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshpower & Energy Consultants Vs. Ito, India Pvt. Ltd, Ward-19(1), House No. U-136, Vikas Marg, Delhi Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg3625J Assessee By : Shri Harish Chaudhary, Ca Shri Mohit Chaudhary, Ca Ms. Neetu Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2024

For Appellant: Shri Harish Chaudhary, CaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 90ASection 91

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

Brandix Apparal India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 5(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 627/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.627/Viz/2018 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2014-15) Brandix Apparel India Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Apsez, Pudimadaka Road, Circle-5(1), Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam – 530011. Pan: Aaccb 6569 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Darpan Kriplani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri Darpan KriplaniFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

under CASS and notice U/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 8/9/2015 and served on the 21/9/2015. The assessee later filed a revised return of income on 31/3/2016 by claiming an exemption of Rs. 4,73,25,503/- U/s. 10AA of the Act and however, paid

Vijay Srinivas Bobba, India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 833/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojarind Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Vijay Srinivas Bobba, Vs. Dcit, Flat No.502, Indraprastha Ruhe, Circle – 2(2)(1), Pattandur Agrahara Village, Bengaluru. Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru – 560 066. Pan : Aitpb 9536 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Prashanth G. S, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G. S, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ashwin D Gowda, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

India under the facts & circumstances of the case. 3 (a) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant could not file the revised return of income during the course of assessment proceedings as the e-filing window was closed and thus the revised computation filed by the appellant ... ought to have been considered as revised return under the facts & circumstances of the case. (b) The authorities below failed to appreciate that the hyper technical approach should not be adopted in collection of taxes and thus the cost of acquisition of shares ought to have been adopted at Rs.3

Gulshan Kumar, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 203Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

case was, subsequently selected for complete scrutiny under the e-assessment scheme, 2019 on the issue, namely reduction of income in Revised Return and claim of refund and income from other sources. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) served upon the assessee notice under section

Jolly Maker 1 Prem Co-Op Soc Ltd, Mumbai City vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2828/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: M.V. ChokshiFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

Section 250Section 27Section 60Section 80P

separate returns were filed, one for society and second for trust in representative capacity. During the assessment proceedings, at the department's instance revised returns were filed to club the income as representative assessee with that of society and assessment was completed under Section

Jolly Maker 1 Prem Co-Op Soc Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2827/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: M.V. ChokshiFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

Section 250Section 27Section 60Section 80P

Jolly Maker 1 Prem Co-Op Soc Ltd, Mumbai City vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 17(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2826/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: M.V. ChokshiFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

Section 250Section 27Section 60Section 80P