“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

Kishan Kumar Agarwal, Secunderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 573/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.573/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Kishan Kumar Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Agarwal Central Circle 2(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ablpa3923C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 18/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2.12.2022 Of The Learned Cit(A)-12, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.17,05,680/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The I.T. Act.

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Referring to the following decision, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that when the assessee has filed revised return after the search has been conducted and such return has been accepted by the Assessing Officer, then merely by virtue of the Act that such return showed a higher income

Pankaj Madhusudan Trivedi, Vadodara vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(2)Section 40

that the assessee had filed original return of income on 13.10.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 3,32,72,650/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 05.02.2019 declaring total income at Rs. 3,20,88,190/-. The scrutiny proceedings were completed under Section

Shri.Prakash R. Nair, Kollam vs. DCIT, Kollam

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

ITA 141/COCH/2021[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprakash R. Nair Dy.Cit, Central Circle Prop. Dhanya Foods Kollam Kochuppilammoodu Vs. Kollam 691001 [Pan:Abfpn4424P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80Section 801A(9)Section 80HSection 80I

lakhs respectively, the same stood altered to a loss (ignored in computing deduction u/s. 80HHC) and Rs.416.69 lakhs respectively in the revised return. The manufacturing profit for the purpose of deduction u/s. 80-IA, however, remained unaltered at Rs.275.32 lakhs (including rs.13.54 lakhs by way of processing commission), claiming deduction ... similar transactions pertaining to such activity in Andhra Pradesh were omitted by oversight in all the units of the group. This necessitated filling a revised return of income which was also in response to notice under 148. The revised return of income filed in June 2003 was accompanied

Paytm First Games Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

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

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has grossly erred in considering the revised return of income filed under section 139(5) of the Act on 20 February 2020 to be a belated return of income filed under section ... 26/11/2019 within the time limit specified under Explanation 2 to Section 139(1) of the Act and further erred in considering the revised return of income filed u/s 139(5) of the Act on 20/02/2020 to belated return of income filed u/s 139(4) of the act and thereby

Dadi Akhil, Secunderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 580/HYD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 ) Shri Dadi Akhil Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Secundrabad Central Circle 3(2) Pan:Ahjpa1911C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5.9.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2020-21. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.35,88,126/-.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 143(2)

filed written submission through ITBA/Tapal. 4. During the course of assessement proceedings, it was submitted that there was an error in filing the re-revised return of income. It was submitted that in the re-revised return of income, the assessee declared income from business to the tune of Rs.5 ... compared to the revised return filed on 31.03.2021 declaring an income of Rs.4,78,91,225/-. It was erroneously re-revised by declaring total income at Rs.6,22,24,890/-. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied by the arguments advanced by the assessee on the ground that the assessee

D.C.I.T., Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........…..........................…..…..... Respondent Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] C.O. 39/Kol/2019 (A/O I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd…………...........….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector Birla Building, 9/1, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata – 700001. [Pan: Aabcb2075J] Vs Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata…………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal By The Revenue & The Corresponding Cross Objections By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 30.05.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). First, We Take Up Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.1964/Kol/2019. I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2019 & C.O. 39/Kol/2019 M/S Birla Corporation Ltd

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 80I

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग

DCIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 3913/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

For Respondent: Date

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 154Section 250

Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3195/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: us. 2.

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 154Section 250

book profit of INR 3319,67,89,179/- under Section 115JB of the Act. The Assessee-Company revised return of income on 30/03/2016 declaring a taxable profit of INR 1890,84,39,361/- under normal provisions of the Act and book profit of INR 3319,67,89,179/- under Section ... loss arising due to Exchange Rate Variation (for Short „ERV‟) on Foreign Loans used for creating indigenous assets made by the Assessee in the revised return. 33.1. Both the sides adopted the arguments made in relation to Additional Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee in appeal for the Assessment Year

ACIT (TDS), Gurgaon vs. Artemis Medicare Service Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 554/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit (Tds), Vs. Artemis Medicares Services Ltd, 414/1, 4Th Floor, Dda Gurgaon Commercial Complex, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aafca0130M

For Appellant: Ms. Shaily Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 192Section 194JSection 201(1)

year. 9. The assessee company in the revised computation of income filed before the ld. AO along with the revised return filed on 22.8.2013, which is well within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act, had disallowed voluntarily ... provision of expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The said expenses were disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the revised return on the ground that the said expenditures were not subjected to deduction of tax at source. The case of the assessee is that these

M/S. Tso Jhe Khangsar Charity Hospital Society, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-1, Mysuru

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

ITA 912/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, S

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 154

justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground that there was no order which requires rectification since the appellant had filed a revised return of income under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 2.1 The learned CIT[A] failed to appreciate that the intimation ... processed based on the original return of income filed ignoring the revised return filed on the very same day since the acknowledgement for having filed the revised return was not sent to the CPC within 30 days from date of filing the return and hence, the intimation continued to exist

Fortune Park Hotels Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-9(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1396/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 244A

receipt of invoice in the immediately succeeding year, the assessee had made a claim of deduction of the said ESOP expenses in the revised return as per law and re-casted the financial statements of financial year 2015-16 (year under consideration) for the purposes of comparative representation with financial ... Taxman 554. 9. It is also the fact that the claim of deduction of ESOP expenditure was made by the assessee in the revised return filed on 31/03/2019 which is well within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: 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. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250

adhere the principles of natural justice went to the root of the matter. Also, the CBDT circular that permitted to the Assessee to file revised returns if he omitted to make a claim was also not noticed by the AO.” Therefore the Assessing Officer was bound to supply those statements

Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: 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. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd (Formerly Knwon As Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (As Ultimate Successor to Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 5091/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R

Section 28Section 40Section 45

repayment of Sale Tax Deferral Loan as capital receipt on the alleged ground that no fresh claim can be made except by filing a revised return. 2. In doing so, he further erred in holding that the aforesaid amount is a trading receipt/business income relying on the decision of Chowrighee ... sale tax differential loan as capital receipt on the ground that no fresh claim can be made by the assessee except by filing revised return. Facts of this issue are the assessee has collected sales tax from the parties on behalf of the government ITA No.3706/M/2010 & 39 M/s. Piramal Enterprises

Piramal Healthcare Ltd ( Earlier Knownas Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 3706/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R

Section 28Section 40Section 45

Technoforce Solutions (I) Private Limited, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik

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

ITA 1381/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1381/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Technoforce Solutions (I) Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Nashik. Private Limited, D-33/35, Midc Industrial Area, Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Aabct5257C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dilip Bapat & Shri Milind Modak Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2024 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 16.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Has Erred In Not Entertaining The Claim Of The Appellant For Deduction Of Service Tax Of Rs 40,82,852 Under Section 37 Of The Income Tax Act On The Ground That The Said Claim Was Not Made In The Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Bapat &For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 143(3)Section 37

No.1040 of 2014) and proceeded to hold that in the absence of claim made in the return of income or by filing revised return of income, the additional claim made during the course of assessment proceedings cannot be entertained. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before ... such decision does not relate to the power of the assessing 5 officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the process the Supreme Court recognized that a new claim could not be entertained by the assessing officer without the assessee revising

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 209/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.208/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2006-07) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.209/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2006-07) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Income Tax Officer बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Ward-3(1) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &

Section 143(3)

compute interest u/s 244A on the ground that the assessee filed TDS certificates for Rs.191.50 Lacs at the time of filing the revised return of income on 25.02.2008. The Ld. AO held that since the delay in furnishing TDS certificates was attributable to the assessee, interest u/s 244A could ... from the period for which interest was payable. In the present case, the assessee did not file the required TDS certificates till filing of revised return of income on 25.02.2008. The filing of e-return would not bar the assessee from filing TDS certificates to the assessing officer for processing

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 208/CHNY/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &

Section 143(3)

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 205/CHNY/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.204/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.205/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Acit / Ito बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Circle-6(2) / 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Corporate Ward-3(1) / Vs. Chennai-600 032. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194CSection 41(1)Section 43B

Madras Fertilisers ltd., Vs CIT (209 ITR 174, 194)(Madras). Therefore, what the assessee did was to file a revised return of income for the year 2003-04, reversing the write off of interest of Rs.105.73 crores referred to earlier, which the assessee mistakenly called "offering of interest income

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 204/CHNY/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194CSection 41(1)Section 43B