← 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

Neeta Garg, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2337/DEL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)

assessee filed her original return of income under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 29.07.2019. Thereafter a revised return under section 139(5) of the Act was filed on 28.07.2020 declaring income of Rs.27,14,700/- including the income earned from outside India ... Rs.27,16,466/-. The original returns under section 139(1) as well as the revised return under section 139(5) of the Act were filed within the extended due date pursuant to the Notification brought out by the Government of India through Taxation & Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance

Goa Minerals Private Limited, Vasco vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(1), Panaji

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

ITA 63/PAN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.63/Pan/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Goa Minerals Private Limited, The Assistant P.B.No.14, Salgaocar House, V Commissioner Of Income Dr.F.L.Gomes Road, S Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Vasco Da Gama, Goa. Goa – 403802 Pan: Aaacg 6716 C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Veer Raghavan – Ar Revenue By Shri N. Shrikanth – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2023

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)

capital expenditure and was allowed to add to capital work in progress. 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the revised return under section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] could not be filed by the appellant as the limitation period as provided ... purpose of filing revised return of income of the year under appeal has already expired at the time of completion of the then assessment of assessment year 2013-14. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not invoking the power of reducing the assessment granted under sub-section (a) read

M/S. Itc Essentra Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2581/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K.R Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, JCIT (DR)
Section 37Section 40

consideration of additional claim raised during the course of assessment proceedings Powers to admit a fresh claim other than by way of a revised return of income ('ROI' 1.1 The learned CIT(A) has erred in concluding that since there is no express provision in the Act which empowers

Income Tax Officer 11(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Satguru Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

ITA 878/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN

Satguru Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 11(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue

ITA 483/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Satguru Corporate Services Ito, 11(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Vs. 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Floor, Mumbai. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 11(1)(3), M/S Satguru Corporate Services Pvt. Room No. 201, Aayakar Ltd., Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37-40 Mumbai-400020. Subhash Road, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aapcs 2160 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN

Vasudha Dalmia, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2639/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Arijit Chakravarty, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

claimed relief U/s 90 for Rs. 17,04,600/- for Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) in respect of taxes paid in USA. The revised return was also processed but claim of FTC was disallowed. The assessee filed an application U/s 154 which was rejected by the CPC. The assessee preferred ... fact that the assessee filed the original return of income before the due date. However, Form 67 was filed along with the revised return of income was filed on 31-5-2021. It is a fact that to prevent spread of COVID-19 Pandemic, the Government imposed various restrictions. Taking

Nisha Rungta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

concealed, and had offered same as his income, concealment was clear and patent - Held, yes - 5 Nisha Rungta vs. ITO Whether mere filing of revised returns after search in his premises could not exonerate him from liability for penalty-Held, yes – Whether, penalty was to be imposed according ... small portion of HUF income was declared by assessee leaving out a major portion of said income - Further, in response to scrutiny notice, revised return was filed, in which assessee made addition to his income - It was observed that if department had not taken up for scrutiny, additional income from

Mustansir Muhammad Dalvi, Panvel vs. ITO, Ward-2, Panvel

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

ITA 2185/MUM/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2023AY 2022-23

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

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)

income for the immediately preceding year,, i.e., AY 2021-22without opting for scheme provided u/s 115BAC of the Act. Subsequently, he filed revised return of income for AY 2021-22 opting for the scheme prescribed u/s 115BAC of the Act. However, the same was rejected by CPC and accordingly ... challenged the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act in AY 2021-22 contending that the option exercised by the assessee in the revised return should be accepted and the income tax should be computed at the rates prescribed u/s 115BAC of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) rejected

ACIT(OSD), Ward-22(1), New Delhi vs. S.S. Gas Lab Asia P. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, cross objection of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3246/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaacit(Osd), Vs. S. S. Gas Lab Asia P. Ltd, Ward-22(1), A-6/3, Jhilmil Industrial Area, New Delhi Shahdara, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakcs1928C Co No. 54/Del/2023 (In Ita No. 3246/Del/2019) (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit(Osd), Vs. S. S. Gas Lab Asia P. Ltd, Ward-22(1), A-6/3, Jhilmil Industrial Area, New Delhi Shahdara, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aakcs1928C Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Kumar Bindal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/10/2023 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, A. M.: 1. The Appeal In Ita No. 3246/Del/2019 Filed By The Revenue & Co No. 54/Del/2023 387/Del/2021 Filed By The Assessee For Ay 2008-09, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Cit(A)‟, In Short] In Appeal No. 10208/16-17 Dated 08.02.2019 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 09.03.2016 By The Assessing Officer, Ito, Ward-22(1), New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟).

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 10BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

declared Nil income. This return was revised u/s 139(5) of the Act on 10.10.2009. The assessment was completed considering the revised return by the ld AO in the original scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act on 02.02.2011 determining the total income of the assessee

Gunnebo, Mumbai vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1441/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1441/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Gunnebo Ab Acit (International बिधम/ Po Box No.5181, Goteberg, Taxation), Circle-2(3)(2) Vs. Sweden. Room No.2908, 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre-1, Cuffee Parade, Mumbai-400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecg9613J (अपीलार्थी /Assessee) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/Pratik Shah/Riddhi Maru Revenue By: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/PratikFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar Soni (Sr. DR)
Section 139Section 14Section 143(3)Section 92C

Gunnebo AB the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd (284 ITR 223) observing that the same was not made by way of revised return of income. We however note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that where claim of deduction was not made ... shut up for all the times to come merely because it is raised for the first time in appellate proceedings in absence of a revised return filed before the Assessing Officer. For the aforementioned reasons, the preliminary reason cited by the lower authorities rejecting the claim of the assessee

The Supreme Industrial Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 7598/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7598/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Supreme Industries Ltd. Acit Ltu, Circle, बिधम/ 612, Raheja Chambers, Free Mumbai Vs. Press Journal Marg, Room No. X, 29Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai- World Trade Centre-1, 400021. Cuffee Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1344F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar (Cit- Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar (CIT- DR)
Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 197Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

hence is revenue in nature. 9. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We note that the assessee company had filed revised return of income on 09.03.2017 and claimed the IPS subsidy of Rs.47,32,73,937/- credited in the Profit & Loss Account

Naval Kishore Daga, Jodhpur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Oct 2023AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 57

assessment year 2017-18, declaring total income of Rs. 10,74,515/-, claiming refund of Rs. 2,720/-. Later, assessee filed his revised return of income on 29.09.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 10,76,941/- claiming refund of Rs. 2,340/-. CPC, Bengaluru processed the return of assessee ... statement of facts, and the submissions of the appellant have been considered. 6.4 In this case, the appellant had filed his revised return of income on 29.09.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 10,76,941/- claiming refund of Rs. 2,340/-. CPC, Bengalaru issued Intimation

ACIT, Corporate Circle3(1), Chennai vs. M/S.Shriram Finance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 439/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.439/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Shriram Finance Ltd., No. 21St Century Business Centre 1, Income Tax, Mookambika Complex, 4Th Floor, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. 4, Lady Desikachari Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan:Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 10.02.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Company, Engaged In The Business Of Financing For Commercial Vehicles, Filed Its Return Of Income For 2

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

I.T.A. No. 439/Chny/23 the assessment year 2014-15 on 28.11.2014 declaring an income of ₹.1187,63,45,780/-. The assessee has also filed a revised return on 30.03.2016 declaring an income of ₹.1190,56,32,710/-. The return was taken up for scrutiny under CASS and notice under section

M/S Cholamandalam Investment 7 Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT-1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 846/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 846/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Cholamandalam Investment & Deputy Commissioner Of Finance Company Limited, V. Income Tax, No.2, Dare House, Nsc Bose Road, Company Circle-1(3), Parrys, Chennai – 600 001 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aaacc-1226-H] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Ajit Kumar, Ca & Shri. Kunal Shah, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Kumar, CA and Shri. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 09.11.2012, admitting a total income of Rs. 60,87,76,411/- and further filed a revised return on 26.07.2012, admitting total income of Rs. 14,41,78,134/-. :-5-: ITA. No: 846/Chny/2020 During the financial year relevant to assessment year

Shri. S Arputharaj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

ITA 1499/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1493, 1494, 1495, 1496, 1497, 1498 & 1499/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri. S. Arputharaj, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.5, Krishna Nagar, V. Income Tax, Sowripalayam, Central Circle -1, Near Esi Dispensary, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 028. [Pan: Adjpa-9492-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Anish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Anish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271FSection 276C

Date of original R/I originally R/I u/s. returned u/s. Notice u/s. returned 153A/142(1) 153A 143(2) 2009-10 28/08/2010 3424530 29/06/2016 1400740 15/07/2016 (Revised return) 2010-11 14/10/2010 19933740 10/08/2016 1026110 11/08/2016 2011-12 30/09/2011 141230 13/08/2016 -9778276 08/09/2016 2012-13 30/09/2012 0 18/08/2016 106050 08/09/2016 2013-14 25/10/2013

Shri. S Arputharaj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

ITA 1498/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1493, 1494, 1495, 1496, 1497, 1498 & 1499/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri. S. Arputharaj, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.5, Krishna Nagar, V. Income Tax, Sowripalayam, Central Circle -1, Near Esi Dispensary, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 028. [Pan: Adjpa-9492-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Anish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Anish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271FSection 276C

Date of original R/I originally R/I u/s. returned u/s. Notice u/s. returned 153A/142(1) 153A 143(2) 2009-10 28/08/2010 3424530 29/06/2016 1400740 15/07/2016 (Revised return) 2010-11 14/10/2010 19933740 10/08/2016 1026110 11/08/2016 2011-12 30/09/2011 141230 13/08/2016 -9778276 08/09/2016 2012-13 30/09/2012 0 18/08/2016 106050 08/09/2016 2013-14 25/10/2013

Shri. S Arputharaj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

ITA 1497/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1493, 1494, 1495, 1496, 1497, 1498 & 1499/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri. S. Arputharaj, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.5, Krishna Nagar, V. Income Tax, Sowripalayam, Central Circle -1, Near Esi Dispensary, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 028. [Pan: Adjpa-9492-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Anish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Anish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271FSection 276C

Date of original R/I originally R/I u/s. returned u/s. Notice u/s. returned 153A/142(1) 153A 143(2) 2009-10 28/08/2010 3424530 29/06/2016 1400740 15/07/2016 (Revised return) 2010-11 14/10/2010 19933740 10/08/2016 1026110 11/08/2016 2011-12 30/09/2011 141230 13/08/2016 -9778276 08/09/2016 2012-13 30/09/2012 0 18/08/2016 106050 08/09/2016 2013-14 25/10/2013

Shri. S Arputharaj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

ITA 1496/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1493, 1494, 1495, 1496, 1497, 1498 & 1499/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri. S. Arputharaj, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.5, Krishna Nagar, V. Income Tax, Sowripalayam, Central Circle -1, Near Esi Dispensary, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 028. [Pan: Adjpa-9492-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Anish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Anish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271FSection 276C

Date of original R/I originally R/I u/s. returned u/s. Notice u/s. returned 153A/142(1) 153A 143(2) 2009-10 28/08/2010 3424530 29/06/2016 1400740 15/07/2016 (Revised return) 2010-11 14/10/2010 19933740 10/08/2016 1026110 11/08/2016 2011-12 30/09/2011 141230 13/08/2016 -9778276 08/09/2016 2012-13 30/09/2012 0 18/08/2016 106050 08/09/2016 2013-14 25/10/2013

Shri. S Arputharaj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

ITA 1495/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1493, 1494, 1495, 1496, 1497, 1498 & 1499/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri. S. Arputharaj, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.5, Krishna Nagar, V. Income Tax, Sowripalayam, Central Circle -1, Near Esi Dispensary, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 028. [Pan: Adjpa-9492-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Anish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Anish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271FSection 276C

Date of original R/I originally R/I u/s. returned u/s. Notice u/s. returned 153A/142(1) 153A 143(2) 2009-10 28/08/2010 3424530 29/06/2016 1400740 15/07/2016 (Revised return) 2010-11 14/10/2010 19933740 10/08/2016 1026110 11/08/2016 2011-12 30/09/2011 141230 13/08/2016 -9778276 08/09/2016 2012-13 30/09/2012 0 18/08/2016 106050 08/09/2016 2013-14 25/10/2013

Shri. S Arputharaj, Coimbatore vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Coimbatore

ITA 1494/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1493, 1494, 1495, 1496, 1497, 1498 & 1499/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Shri. S. Arputharaj, The Deputy Commissioner Of No.5, Krishna Nagar, V. Income Tax, Sowripalayam, Central Circle -1, Near Esi Dispensary, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 028. [Pan: Adjpa-9492-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Anish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. R. Anish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271FSection 276C

Date of original R/I originally R/I u/s. returned u/s. Notice u/s. returned 153A/142(1) 153A 143(2) 2009-10 28/08/2010 3424530 29/06/2016 1400740 15/07/2016 (Revised return) 2010-11 14/10/2010 19933740 10/08/2016 1026110 11/08/2016 2011-12 30/09/2011 141230 13/08/2016 -9778276 08/09/2016 2012-13 30/09/2012 0 18/08/2016 106050 08/09/2016 2013-14 25/10/2013