← 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

Sambalpur Development Authority, Sambalpur vs. DCIT, Cir 1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 153/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalita Nos.150 To 154/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008 2008, 2008-2009,2009- 2010 & 2010-2011 Sambalpur Sambalpur Development Development Vs. Deputy Deputy Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Authority, Authority, The The Secretary Secretary Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-1(1), (Cfo), (Cfo), Near Near Lions Lions Club, Club, Sambalpur Sambalpur Salia Bagicha, Sambalpur Salia Bagicha, Sambalpur Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaals 3934 P (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida , Adv Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri Chitrasen ParidaFor Respondent: Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 264

vide his order dated 22.3.2016 set aside the assessment and had directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment. On 4.12.201, the assessee filed revised returns for the assessment years 2008- 09 to 2010-2011. On 29.12.2016, fresh assessment order came to be passed u/s.147/264 r.w.s ... held that the assessee can make a claim for deduction, which has not been claimed in the return, only by filing a revised return within the time allowed but the appellate authority can direct for consideration of the same. 4. In reply, ld CIT DR vehemently supported the order

Sambalpur Development Authority, Sambalpur vs. DCIT, Cir 1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 152/CTK/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalita Nos.150 To 154/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008 2008, 2008-2009,2009- 2010 & 2010-2011 Sambalpur Sambalpur Development Development Vs. Deputy Deputy Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Authority, Authority, The The Secretary Secretary Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-1(1), (Cfo), (Cfo), Near Near Lions Lions Club, Club, Sambalpur Sambalpur Salia Bagicha, Sambalpur Salia Bagicha, Sambalpur Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaals 3934 P (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida , Adv Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri Chitrasen ParidaFor Respondent: Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 264

vide his order dated 22.3.2016 set aside the assessment and had directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment. On 4.12.201, the assessee filed revised returns for the assessment years 2008- 09 to 2010-2011. On 29.12.2016, fresh assessment order came to be passed u/s.147/264 r.w.s ... held that the assessee can make a claim for deduction, which has not been claimed in the return, only by filing a revised return within the time allowed but the appellate authority can direct for consideration of the same. 4. In reply, ld CIT DR vehemently supported the order

Sambalpur Development Authority, Sambalpur vs. DCIT, Cir 1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 151/CTK/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalita Nos.150 To 154/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008 2008, 2008-2009,2009- 2010 & 2010-2011 Sambalpur Sambalpur Development Development Vs. Deputy Deputy Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Authority, Authority, The The Secretary Secretary Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-1(1), (Cfo), (Cfo), Near Near Lions Lions Club, Club, Sambalpur Sambalpur Salia Bagicha, Sambalpur Salia Bagicha, Sambalpur Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaals 3934 P (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida , Adv Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri Chitrasen ParidaFor Respondent: Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 264

vide his order dated 22.3.2016 set aside the assessment and had directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment. On 4.12.201, the assessee filed revised returns for the assessment years 2008- 09 to 2010-2011. On 29.12.2016, fresh assessment order came to be passed u/s.147/264 r.w.s ... held that the assessee can make a claim for deduction, which has not been claimed in the return, only by filing a revised return within the time allowed but the appellate authority can direct for consideration of the same. 4. In reply, ld CIT DR vehemently supported the order

Sambalpur Development Authority, Sambalpur vs. DCIT, Cir 1(1), Sambalpur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 150/CTK/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Nov 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Girish Agrawalita Nos.150 To 154/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year Assessment Years : 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008 2008, 2008-2009,2009- 2010 & 2010-2011 Sambalpur Sambalpur Development Development Vs. Deputy Deputy Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Authority, Authority, The The Secretary Secretary Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-1(1), (Cfo), (Cfo), Near Near Lions Lions Club, Club, Sambalpur Sambalpur Salia Bagicha, Sambalpur Salia Bagicha, Sambalpur Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaals 3934 P (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida , Adv Revenue By : Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak, Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/11/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri Chitrasen ParidaFor Respondent: Dr.Abani Kanta Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 264

vide his order dated 22.3.2016 set aside the assessment and had directed the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment. On 4.12.201, the assessee filed revised returns for the assessment years 2008- 09 to 2010-2011. On 29.12.2016, fresh assessment order came to be passed u/s.147/264 r.w.s ... held that the assessee can make a claim for deduction, which has not been claimed in the return, only by filing a revised return within the time allowed but the appellate authority can direct for consideration of the same. 4. In reply, ld CIT DR vehemently supported the order

ITO Ward-32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Dharam Hasmukhbhai Jagda, Mumbai

ITA 446/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am Dharam Hasmukhbhai Jagda Income Tax Officer 32(1)(1) 154/155, Santvani Bld., Lic R. No. 703, Kautilya Bhavan, Colony, Besides Upadhya Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. Dairy,Birivali(W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpj0431B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

tune of Rs.19,39,539/-, which was found to be penny stock by the AO. The assessee accepted the assessment order by filling the revised return and by filling the tax due thereon. It is also not an dispute that the AO has disallowed the exemption ... transactions but the AO did not accept the explanation. In such situation, he came torward and offered the amount to tax by filing a revised return of income. AO accepted the income as per the revised return of income and there is no difference between the revised income offered

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl/ Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 1218/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 92CSection 92C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

DCIT (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1766/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

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

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

return of income was filed by the assessee for the year under consideration on 30.9.2013 and subsequently the assessee also filed a revised return. The assessment was originally completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 30.3.2016. Subsequently the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section

Tulsiani Infraventures Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Dc/ACIT, Central Circle, Varanasi

In the result the addition of Rs

ITA 75/VNS/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi22 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklatulsiani Infrastructure Vs. Dc/Acit, Private Limited, 37, ‘Central Circle, Varanashi Elgin Road, Civil Lines, Aaykar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor Allahabad- 211001 Maqbool Alam Road, Varanasi - 221002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadct8858R Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : V.K. Jindal & Ashish Jindal Respondent By : Robin Chaudhary Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: (Jm): The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.05.2023, Passed By Cit (Appeals) Lucknow-3 For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed In Sec. 153 R.W.S 143(3) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In Various Grounds Of Appeal The Assessee Has Challenged The Addition Of Rs.41,64,28,242/- As Against Rs.3,50,15,393/- Surrendered/Offered By The Assessee. It Has Been Stated In The Grounds That The Addition Has Been Made By The Ao By Extrapolating The Figure Of Alleged On-Money Noted In Seized Documents Which Was Rough Detail Of Amount Received/ Receivable From The Buyers For The Booking

For Appellant: V.K. Jindal &For Respondent: Robin Chaudhary
Section 153

year was Rs.3,76,46,681/- and after reducing commission expenses of Rs.26,31,288/-, sum of Rs.3,50,15,393/- for disclosed revised return Page 3 Tulsiani Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DC/ACIT CC Varanasi of income and assessee also paid the taxes on the said income surrendered ... mentioned client, in response to your query and in continuation of our earlier submission, we wish to submit as under: 1. The assessee has revised return of income for the year under consideration offering the amount under the head Income from Business & Profession of Rs.3,76,46,681/- as amount

Vishnumpet Sundaresan Venkatesh, Bengaluru vs. Assessing Officer, ACIT Circle

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

ITA 516/BANG/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2007-08 Shri. Vishnumpet Sundaresan Venkatesh, Vs. Acit, 42, Prestige Woodside, Circle – 6(1), Off Doddaballapur Main Road, Bengaluru. Avalahalli, Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan : Aajpv 5556 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Venkatesh Sundaresan, Assessee Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Venkatesh Sundaresan, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 139(5)Section 154Section 250Section 80C

occupying a responsible post-Senior Manger -Technology in M/s.Talisma Corporation P Ltd . during the A.Y.2007-08. But why he has not filed a revised return u/s 139(5) of the Income Tax Act for the A.Y.2007-08, if at all there were any omission or wrong statement . The appellant has not availed

Parasuram Kesari, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 189/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

issued a notice U/s. 148 of the Act on 11/12/2015 which was served on 15/12/2015. In response, the assessee filed his revised return of income for the AY 2012-13 on 11/1/2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 5,89,187/-. Thereafter, the Ld. AO issued a notice

Anil Nachrani, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 47/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 47/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

culled out as under: "10.4 The Learned Counsel for the Assessee also argued that since the assessment is framed on the basis of the revised return filed on 1stJuly, 2013 and according to Ld. CIT it was a non-Est return, if assessment is framed on non-Est return ... therefore, the same was quashed. The A.O in this case has framed the assessment on the basis of revised return filed on 1st July 2013 and taken the income from the same for computing the total income of assessee. It is also case of the Revenue that even

Nageswara Rao Pinneti, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 89/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA (S.No.1 to 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7)For Respondent: Shri CH V Gopinath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

beneficiaries who had taken entries of nearly Rs.40 crores have voluntarily surrendered it for taxation without any further enquiry. v. Several assessees have filed revised returns since the enquiries have taken back their claim of exemption. 9. The Assessing Officer observed that on verification of computation of income filed

Govinda Kumar Agarwal, Hydeabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 125/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA (S.No.1 to 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7)For Respondent: Shri CH V Gopinath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

beneficiaries who had taken entries of nearly Rs.40 crores have voluntarily surrendered it for taxation without any further enquiry. v. Several assessees have filed revised returns since the enquiries have taken back their claim of exemption. 9. The Assessing Officer observed that on verification of computation of income filed

Vikas Kumar Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 705/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA (S.No.1 to 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7)For Respondent: Shri CH V Gopinath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

beneficiaries who had taken entries of nearly Rs.40 crores have voluntarily surrendered it for taxation without any further enquiry. v. Several assessees have filed revised returns since the enquiries have taken back their claim of exemption. 9. The Assessing Officer observed that on verification of computation of income filed

Saroj Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 704/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA (S.No.1 to 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7)For Respondent: Shri CH V Gopinath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

beneficiaries who had taken entries of nearly Rs.40 crores have voluntarily surrendered it for taxation without any further enquiry. v. Several assessees have filed revised returns since the enquiries have taken back their claim of exemption. 9. The Assessing Officer observed that on verification of computation of income filed

Sumeet Kumar Agarwal, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1942/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA (S.No.1 to 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7)For Respondent: Shri CH V Gopinath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

beneficiaries who had taken entries of nearly Rs.40 crores have voluntarily surrendered it for taxation without any further enquiry. v. Several assessees have filed revised returns since the enquiries have taken back their claim of exemption. 9. The Assessing Officer observed that on verification of computation of income filed

Naresh Kumar Agarwal, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1941/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA (S.No.1 to 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7)For Respondent: Shri CH V Gopinath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

beneficiaries who had taken entries of nearly Rs.40 crores have voluntarily surrendered it for taxation without any further enquiry. v. Several assessees have filed revised returns since the enquiries have taken back their claim of exemption. 9. The Assessing Officer observed that on verification of computation of income filed

Govind Kumar Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1940/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA (S.No.1 to 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7)For Respondent: Shri CH V Gopinath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

beneficiaries who had taken entries of nearly Rs.40 crores have voluntarily surrendered it for taxation without any further enquiry. v. Several assessees have filed revised returns since the enquiries have taken back their claim of exemption. 9. The Assessing Officer observed that on verification of computation of income filed

Abhishek Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 167/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumars.No Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 1 125/Hyd/2020 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 2 1940/Hyd/2018 Shri Govind Kumar Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Aempa6821K Hyderabad 3 1941/Hyd/2018 Shri Naresh Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8519L 4 1942/Hyd/2018 Shri Sumeet Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal, Officer Ward Secunderabad 10(2) Hyderabad Pan:Adhpa8516F 5 704/Hyd/2019 Smt. Saroj Agarwal, Income Tax 2015-16 Hyderabad Officer Ward 4(2) Pan:Adhpa8513A Hyderabad 6 705/Hyd/2019 Shri Vikas Kumar Income Tax 2015-16 Agarwal Hyderabad Officer Ward Pan:Adhpa8515G 4(2)Hyderabad 7 89/Hyd/2022 Shri Nageswara Rao Acit, Central 2015-15 Pinneti, Hyderabad Circle 1(2) Pan:Acupp6464D Hyderabad 8 167/Hyd/2018 Shri Abhishek Income Tax 2014-15 Agarwal, Hyderabad Officer Pan:Adypa7514N Ward 16(2) Hyderabad Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca (S.No.1 To 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7) & Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate (S.No.8) Revenue By: Shri Ch V Gopinath, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA (S.No.1 to 6), Shri P. Vinod, Advocate (S.No.7)For Respondent: Shri CH V Gopinath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

beneficiaries who had taken entries of nearly Rs.40 crores have voluntarily surrendered it for taxation without any further enquiry. v. Several assessees have filed revised returns since the enquiries have taken back their claim of exemption. 9. The Assessing Officer observed that on verification of computation of income filed

Young Mens Welfare Society, Kolkata vs. ADIT (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 614/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.613&614/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Young Mens Welfare Society............................................................……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aaaay3175H] Vs. Adit (Cpc), Bangalore……….…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddarth Agrawal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 21, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 19.09.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. Earlier The Appeals Of The Assessee Were Decided Vide Order Dated 01.05.2023. However, Some Mistakes Apparent On Record Was Noting Down & Facts Were Brought To Our Knowledge Vide Ma Nos.45&46/Kol/2023. The Said M.As Were Decided Vide Order Dated

Section 154Section 250

direction to examine the contentions raised by the assessee and tax the assessee at the rates as applicable to the assessee considering the revised return filed by the assessee. 6. Since the facts and issues involved are identical in both the appeals, therefore, in view of our findings given above