← 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

M/S Oriental Metals India Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. DCIT Circle 1, Kochi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 941/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Vijayakrishnan R. NairFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

reasonable cause for the 53-day delay in furnishing the audit reports u/s. 44AB, and which were so before the filing of the revised return on 16.11.2018 and the issue of notice u/s. 143(2) on 28.8.2018. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on January

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 738/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax 2(3)(1) Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. 5Th Floor, Room No.552, Badra (East), Mumbai-400 051 M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, advFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 48

accordingly reduced the rural advances to Rs.1460,96,93,335 as against Rs. 1608,37,88,170 taken by the Bank in the revised return of income and the Assessing Officer has adopted the reduced figure of rural advances in the assessment order. 7. Excess deduction under section ... viii) of the Act should be restricted to Rs.961,47,93,509 as against Rs.1057,29,83,056 as claimed by Appellant in its revised return resulting in alleged excess deduction of Rs.138,52,06,494 and the Assessing Officer by not considering the correct figure has resulted

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and revenue are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1921/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Assessing Officer did not accept new claim so put forth by the assessee. He held that the assessee has made new claim without filing revised return of income. In this regard, he took support of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India ... will amount of Rs.21.81 crores. The Assessing Officer rejected the said claim by observing that the assessee has made a new claim without filing revised return of income. In this regard the Assessing Officer took support of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Goetz

Rajesh Kanaiyalal Gandhi, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(3) Now Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16 Rajesh Kanaiyalal Gandhi, Vs Income Tax Officer, 01, Shree Krishna Building, Ward-3(1)(3), Madanzampa Road, Opp. Moti (Now Ward 3(1)(4)), Tamboliwad, Patthar Gate, Vadodara Vaoddara-390001 Pan : Afhpg 3235 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Viranch Modi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Aashish Rajesh Revar, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Viranch Modi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Aashish Rajesh Revar, Sr DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

returned income.” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 27.03.2016 declaring total income at Rs.2,11,350/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 27.02.2017 manually, declaring total income at Rs. 2,66,780/- u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was selected for scrutiny

Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 487/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2013-14 Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income- Ltd. V. Tax Nirma House Circle-3(1)(1) Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Near Income Tax Circle Gujarat Ahmedabad-380 009 Gujarat Pan: Aaacn 5353 L अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri Hemanshu Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2024 & 23.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Coram: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 19/05/2022 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2013-14 (Din & Order No.Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1043081956(1)), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld.Cit(A) From Rectification Order Dated 16/02/2022 Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer(Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 154 Of The 1961 Act (Din & Order Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. V. Dcit Ay 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 250Section 253(6)(c)Section 253(6)(d)

income by CPC, Bengaluru was not made addition vide second intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of I.T. Act on 24-11-2021 against revised return of income filed on 12.05.2021. Copy of second intimation dtd. 24-11-2021 is enclosed." Considering the request of the assessee, the appeal is dismissed

M/S.Hdb Financial Services Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 177/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80J

assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.08.2018. Thereafter, the assessee filed its Revised Return of Income on 29.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs.1063,16,50,570/- and book profit of Rs.1058,58,55,1041-. The Revised Return ... auditor of the company has not certified the deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act in col.33 of Form 3CD report and verify whether the revised return filed by the assessee company on 29.03.2019 is valid return as per provisions of section

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3375/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Comp Ltd. (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant- assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a HDFC Bank Ltd. letter before the Assessing Officer ... 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

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3374/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Comp Ltd. (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant- assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a HDFC Bank Ltd. letter before the Assessing Officer ... 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

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 3371/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Comp Ltd. (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant- assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a HDFC Bank Ltd. letter before the Assessing Officer ... 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

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1785/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Comp Ltd. (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant- assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a HDFC Bank Ltd. letter before the Assessing Officer ... 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

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1784/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Comp Ltd. (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant- assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a HDFC Bank Ltd. letter before the Assessing Officer ... 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

Hdfc Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee's appeal for AY 2016-17 to AY 2018-19 is allowed and the Revenue's appeal for AY 2016-17 to 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 1783/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Comp Ltd. (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant- assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a HDFC Bank Ltd. letter before the Assessing Officer ... 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

M/S. Mangalam Publications, Kottayam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam

C.A. No.-008580-008582 - 2011Supreme Court23 Jan 2024

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 260A

assessment year 1992-1993 also, the assessee filed the return of income on 07.12.1992 showing a loss of Rs.10,50,000.00. However, a revised return was filed subsequently on 28.01.1993 5 showing loss of Rs.44,75,212.00. Like the earlier years, assessee did not maintain books of account

Sk Beri and Brothers, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-48(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2829/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2021-22
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 44B

considered by the CPC. The ld. CIT(A) merely rejected the plea of the assessee on the ground that the assessee should have filed revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act if there was any error or omission in the Income Tax Return. Considering the fact that the assessee

Mukesh Trends Lifestyle Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 829/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2018-19 Mukesh Trends Lifestyle Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax N.H. No.8, Narol Naroda V. Circle-2(1)(2) Road Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-382 405 (Gujarat) Pan: Aabcm0500F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" य थ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee By : Shri Vihar Soni, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Coram

For Appellant: Shri Vihar Soni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Chavda, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

appeal on or before of the final hearing of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its revised return of income on 08/03/2019 declaring income of Rs. 8,46,16,174/- . The same was processed

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 192/VIZ/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.192/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Administrative Office Building, Income Tax, Port Area, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam. Andhra Pradesh-530001, Pan: Aaalv 0035 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 2(15)Section 263Section 43B

issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income on 29/03/2012 admitting the same income at Rs. 80,20,30,260/- however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case

Balupuri Ashupuri Goswami, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 31.1.3, Now (14.4.1., Mumbai

ITA 2360/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, Sr. D.R

consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are : the assessee’s return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,62,660/- and revised return for Rs.2,38,130/- was subjected to scrutiny the Assessing Officer (AO) who has noticed that the assessee has shown turnover of Rs.14 ... provisions of section 44AD but the percentage of profit declared by him in his original return as well as in the revised return was near to 20% of the gross receipts. The AO while estimating the income on the suppressed gross receipts has also considered the percentage of profit declared

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Ntl Lemnis India P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6006/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)

resident which is in nature of FTS(Fee for Technical Service)? 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee flied revised return on 28/03/2015 declaring income at NIL and current year loss was claimed at Rs. 10,77,13,660/-. 2 Modi Entertainment Ltd. 4. The assessee

The Jt. CIT, (OSD), Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Sheetal Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue , so far as Ground no

ITA 523/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Jt.Cit (Osd) Sheetal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4(1)(1) V. 25, 4Th Floor Ahmedabad Shukan Mall Nr.Rajasthan Hospital Shahibaug, Ahmedabad-380054 Gujarat Pan: Aaics 9312 A अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Ramit Kocharthis Appeal Filed By Revenue Is Directed Against The Appellate Order Dated 22/01/2019 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, [“Cit(A)” In Short] Under Section 250 Of Sub-Section (6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Assessment Year 2012-13(Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/168/15-16), The Appellate Proceedings Have Arisen Before Ld. Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated Jt.Cit(Osd) V. Sheetal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Ay 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate and Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(2)Section 40A(3)

total amount of Rs. 82,60,000/- during the year under consideration. It was submitted that the claim made by the assesse in its revised return of income based on the order of ld. CIT(A) is not acceptable because, at the first place , the Revenue has not accepted

Shakti Stonex, Industrial Area Kishangarh vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 762/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

concealment of particulars of income or of the inaccuracy of particulars furnished in respect of such income. Such disclosure could also be by a revised return or an application or a letter addressed to the taxing authority. Disclosure contemplated by sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) cannot have different meanings