← 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

Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 244/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return of income which was filed on 30-09-2020. However, the CPC did not consider the original return of income filed on 30-11-2019 wherein

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle2-(2), Hyderabad vs. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 733/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return of income which was filed on 30-09-2020. However, the CPC did not consider the original return of income filed on 30-11-2019 wherein

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle2-(2), Hyderabad vs. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 732/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return of income which was filed on 30-09-2020. However, the CPC did not consider the original return of income filed on 30-11-2019 wherein

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 731/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return of income which was filed on 30-09-2020. However, the CPC did not consider the original return of income filed on 30-11-2019 wherein

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle2-(2), Hyderabad vs. Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 730/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return of income which was filed on 30-09-2020. However, the CPC did not consider the original return of income filed on 30-11-2019 wherein

Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 677/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return of income which was filed on 30-09-2020. However, the CPC did not consider the original return of income filed on 30-11-2019 wherein

Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 647/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return of income which was filed on 30-09-2020. However, the CPC did not consider the original return of income filed on 30-11-2019 wherein

Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 646/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return of income which was filed on 30-09-2020. However, the CPC did not consider the original return of income filed on 30-11-2019 wherein

Sushee Infra & Mining Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 645/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं निर्धारण वर्ा अपीलधर्थी प्रत्‍यर्थी / Ita No. / A.Y. / Appellant / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80

when such deduction was allowed in earlier years. The AR claimed that CPC has made the disallowance because they were considering the revised return of income which was filed on 30-09-2020. However, the CPC did not consider the original return of income filed on 30-11-2019 wherein

DCIT Circle-24(2), New Delhi vs. Sunbeam Auto Pvt Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 673/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada.Yr. : 2012-13 Sunbeam Lightweighting Vs. Dcit, Circle 24(2), Solutions Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi – 110002 (Formerly: Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd), 38/6, K.M. Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Narsingpur, Gurgaon-122001 (Pan: Aafcn8583K) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay 2012-13 Dcit, Circle 24(2), Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 328, Cr Building, Vs. S-323, Panchsheel Park, Ip Estate, New Delhi – 110 017 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaabcs2948F) (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv. & Sh. Parvesh Kumar, Adv. Department By : Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2023 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : The Assessee As Well As Revenue Has Filed The Cross Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. SushilFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 40Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

Briefly stated facts are that assessee filed return of income on 28.9.2012 declaring income of Rs. 82,58,07,040/- and further filed revised return on 19.8.2013 declaring income of Rs. 79,52,25,040/-. The assessee-company is engaged in manufacturing of automotive die cast component, IC engine parts ... subsidy as its income in its original return for AY 2011-12 presently under consideration, it is an admitted fact that the assessee filed revised return under section 139(5) treating the same as capital receipt and that the Ld. CIT(A) has held the revised return as valid return

Sunbeam Lightweighting Solutions Pvt Ltd (Formely Sunbeam Auto Pvt Ltd), Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-24(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 115/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada.Yr. : 2012-13 Sunbeam Lightweighting Vs. Dcit, Circle 24(2), Solutions Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi – 110002 (Formerly: Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd), 38/6, K.M. Stone, Delhi-Jaipur Highway, Narsingpur, Gurgaon-122001 (Pan: Aafcn8583K) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay 2012-13 Dcit, Circle 24(2), Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd, Room No. 328, Cr Building, Vs. S-323, Panchsheel Park, Ip Estate, New Delhi – 110 017 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aaabcs2948F) (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv. & Sh. Parvesh Kumar, Adv. Department By : Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2023 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am : The Assessee As Well As Revenue Has Filed The Cross Appeals Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-8, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Ms. Sashi Kapila, Adv., Sh. SushilFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 40Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

Briefly stated facts are that assessee filed return of income on 28.9.2012 declaring income of Rs. 82,58,07,040/- and further filed revised return on 19.8.2013 declaring income of Rs. 79,52,25,040/-. The assessee-company is engaged in manufacturing of automotive die cast component, IC engine parts ... subsidy as its income in its original return for AY 2011-12 presently under consideration, it is an admitted fact that the assessee filed revised return under section 139(5) treating the same as capital receipt and that the Ld. CIT(A) has held the revised return as valid return

S & P Capital Iq (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 463/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita-Tp No. 463/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)

fact that there may be certain wrong statements or omissions in the return of income and, therefore, the provisions for filing the revised return was incorporated and accordingly every assessee was allowed a time of one year from the end of the assessment year. According to the learned DRP, when ... provides that any error or omission can be rectified only by filing the revised return within the prescribed time under section 139(5) of the Act, neither the assessee is entitled to raise such claim after the prescribed time before the assessing officer nor the assessing officer is empowered

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla vs. Hp Housing and Urban Development Authority (Himuda)

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/35/2019HC Himachal Pradesh22 Dec 2023

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAMIDANNA SATYA RATNA SRI RAMACHANDRA RAO,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

For Appellant: Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate, with
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

year 2006-2007 was filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act and the deductions were claimed only in the revised return furnished later. 2. Facts 2(i) The assessee is M/s H.P. Housing & Urban Development Authority, (HIMUDA), Nigam Vihar, Shimla. The main function ... return of income on 31.03.2007 for AY 2006-2007 declaring an income of Rs. 2,33,74,215/-. On 31.03.2008, the assessee filed a revised return declaring income of Rs. 11,86,511/- and also claiming deduction of Rs. 2,25,43,724/- under Section 80IB

Srimad Virat Pothuluri Veerabrahmendra Swamulavari Matam, Kadapa vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Tirupati

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

ITA 539/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.539/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Srimad Virat Pothuluri The Income Tax Officer, Veerabrahmendra Swamulavari Vs. Exemption Ward, Matam, Kadapa. Tirupati. 8/124-1, Kandimallayapalli, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Aagts2599Q. अपीलधर्थी / Assessee प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have directed to accept the Form 10 filed along with the revised return of income or at least should have considered the fact that the said Form 10 was available in the record as on the date ... assessee had not filed Form 10 which was required to be filed along with the return of income. Further, the assessee filed the revised return of income on 09.03.2018 along with that the assessee had claimed the accumulation amount of Rs.77,06,068/- over and above

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Bhopal vs. M/S. Ayushman Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

Accordingly. This ground is allowed in these terms

ITA 610/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ayushman Medical Income-Tax, Diagnostic Private (Central)-I, Limited, Bhopal E-5, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Tawa Complex, Vs. Bittan Market, Bhopal (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Aabca 2560 P Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

Section 143(3)

Assessment year 2015-16 cannot amend a return of income filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. (ii) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and circumstances of the case by deleting the addition ... Supreme Court that the assessee cannot amend a RoI filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. In this case the assessee has not revised the RoI. Considering all the facts on records the claim of the assessee is rejected.” 3. During

Vasimkhan Hamidkhan Pathan, Dang vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.704/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Vasimkhan Hamidkhan Pathan Income Tax Officer Ward-5, Navsari, Income Ta Office, Charpool, O Main Bazar, At & Po Waghai Vs. Awabaug, Navsari-396445 Tal, Dang-394730 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bptpp 6081 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) will not be imposable. In CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 963 (SC) the assessee filed revised returns showing higher income after search and notice for reopening of assessment, to purchase peace and avoid litigation and Department ITA No.704/SRT/2023 A.Y. 2013-14 Vasimkhan

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd., Surat

ITA 160/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.160/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. M/S. Surat Life Care Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3, Unique Hospital, Opp. Kiran Motor, Surat Nr. Sosyo Circle Lane, Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aarcs8396M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By 14/12/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 21/12/2023

Section 115BSection 131Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 35ASection 68

erred in holding that Rs.1,95,00,000/- is a business income of the assessee as the said income is already offered in the revised return, has to be taxed as income from business despite the fact that the income is not included in the audit report and assessee also ... assessee. In response, the assessee has filed a letter on 09.09.2015 and submitted that the original return was filed on 12.10.2013 and thereafter revised return was filed on 22.09.2014 and again re-revised return of income was filed on 30.03.2015 vide e-filing acknowledgement no.545357981300315. The assessee requested to consider

DCIT- 8(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Estates Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2015/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi/Priyank Gandhi/MsFor Respondent: Shri N. V. Nadkarni, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 24Section 250

proceedings for an item the assessee has not claimed in the return, irrespective of the fact that such a claim is not made by revised return of income. Relying on various judicial precedents the Ld. CIT (A) allowed the Assessee's Appeal of claiming long term capital loss. IV. Assessee ... shares made in assessment proceedings despite the fact that the assessee has not claimed the said long term capital loss by filing a revised return of income. " Thus, the only question raised by the Department is that whether the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in allowing the claim of Assessee

Edelweiss Asset Management Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3020/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule , Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 154Section 25tSection 270ASection 37(1)

loss of Rs. 6,58,19,849/- under section 115JB of the Act. The assessee subsequently filed a revised return on 07.03.2019 declaring a total loss of Rs. 10,69,00,642/- under the normal provisions of the Act and the book loss of Rs. 6,58,19,849/- under ... addition towards disallowance under section 14A of the Act. The AO however had considered the loss filed by the assessee as per the revised return of income in the computation sheet i.e. the AO has assessed the income at Rs.10,62,70,089 (refer page 2 of the computation sheet

The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exem), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10(21)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)Section 263Section 35(1)(ii)

make the 10 The Synthetic & Art Silk Mills Research Association alternate claim of exemption under section 10(21) and also filed the revised return in response to notice under section 148 accordingly. The AO while completing the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s.147 accepted this alternate plea of the assessee