← 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

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

ITA 1493/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

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

Sachin Vilas Chaugule, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result we set-aside all these 6

ITA 708/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blesachin Vilas Chaugule V. Cit (Appeals) – 48 B-1503, Gundecha Heights Mumbai - 400020 Lbs Marg, Kanjurmarg Mumbai - 400078 Pan: Ailpc1561H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 251(1)

down under the income tax act. Therefore, most of the income was required to be offered in assessment year 14 – 15. As per the revised return filed by the assessee on 3/3/2016, he declared total income of ₹ 84,719,040. Total cash found during the search was offered as income

M/S. Atul Projects India P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (Now Juridiction With Dc CC 2(4)), Mumbai

ITA 1940/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

Original return Date of filing 25.11.2014 28.09.2015 17.10.2016 31.10.2017 24.10.2019 Income Returned – Rs.8,88,25,368 Rs.10,28,73,620 Revised return Date of filing 31.03.2016 29.03.2017 Deduction Rs.86,30,612 Rs.28,64,010 Rs.3,77,69,095 Rs,1,80,29,146 u/s.80IB(10) ITA No.1876,1877 & 1880 / Mum/2023 ... person - (a) fails to make the return required /under sub-section (1) of section 139] and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) [or an updated return under sub-section (8A)] of that section, or (b) fails to comply with

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1880/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

Original return Date of filing 25.11.2014 28.09.2015 17.10.2016 31.10.2017 24.10.2019 Income Returned – Rs.8,88,25,368 Rs.10,28,73,620 Revised return Date of filing 31.03.2016 29.03.2017 Deduction Rs.86,30,612 Rs.28,64,010 Rs.3,77,69,095 Rs,1,80,29,146 u/s.80IB(10) ITA No.1876,1877 & 1880 / Mum/2023 ... person - (a) fails to make the return required /under sub-section (1) of section 139] and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) [or an updated return under sub-section (8A)] of that section, or (b) fails to comply with

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1879/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

Original return Date of filing 25.11.2014 28.09.2015 17.10.2016 31.10.2017 24.10.2019 Income Returned – Rs.8,88,25,368 Rs.10,28,73,620 Revised return Date of filing 31.03.2016 29.03.2017 Deduction Rs.86,30,612 Rs.28,64,010 Rs.3,77,69,095 Rs,1,80,29,146 u/s.80IB(10) ITA No.1876,1877 & 1880 / Mum/2023 ... person - (a) fails to make the return required /under sub-section (1) of section 139] and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) [or an updated return under sub-section (8A)] of that section, or (b) fails to comply with

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mimbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1877/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

Original return Date of filing 25.11.2014 28.09.2015 17.10.2016 31.10.2017 24.10.2019 Income Returned – Rs.8,88,25,368 Rs.10,28,73,620 Revised return Date of filing 31.03.2016 29.03.2017 Deduction Rs.86,30,612 Rs.28,64,010 Rs.3,77,69,095 Rs,1,80,29,146 u/s.80IB(10) ITA No.1876,1877 & 1880 / Mum/2023 ... person - (a) fails to make the return required /under sub-section (1) of section 139] and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) [or an updated return under sub-section (8A)] of that section, or (b) fails to comply with

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1876/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

Original return Date of filing 25.11.2014 28.09.2015 17.10.2016 31.10.2017 24.10.2019 Income Returned – Rs.8,88,25,368 Rs.10,28,73,620 Revised return Date of filing 31.03.2016 29.03.2017 Deduction Rs.86,30,612 Rs.28,64,010 Rs.3,77,69,095 Rs,1,80,29,146 u/s.80IB(10) ITA No.1876,1877 & 1880 / Mum/2023 ... person - (a) fails to make the return required /under sub-section (1) of section 139] and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) [or an updated return under sub-section (8A)] of that section, or (b) fails to comply with

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT (Int Tax) -1(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 516/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.516/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Buro Happold Limited, C/O. Sudit K. Parekh & Co. Llp, Urmix Axis, 06Th Floor, Famous Studio Lane, Dr.E.Moses Road, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011. Pan: Aabcb-9239-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation -1(3)(2),Mumbai 1810, 18Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा /Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta "ितवादी "ारा /Respondent By : Shri Anil Sant सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

ground No.3, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that admittedly the claim was not made in the return of 4 income or revised return of income. The claim was made first time before the DRP. The assessee’s claim was rejected by the DRP following the ratio laid ... assessee filed its return of income inter-alia disclosing fee received for Consulting Engineering Services. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income without offering to tax payments received on account of Consulting Engineering Services. The Assessing Officer and the DRP held the receipts on account of Consulting Engineering Services

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA number 1113/M/2022 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1113/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Icici Bank Ltd. Dcit 2(3)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Icic Bank Towers, North East Wing, Ground Floor, Bandra Room No. 552, Maharishi Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Karve Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H

For Appellant: Ms. Aarati Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K. C. Selvamani, DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 32

Goodwill in its return of income and audit report but after the decision of the honourable Supreme Court assessee A.Y.2015-16 ICICI BANK LTD filed revised return of income claiming depreciation on goodwill. c. Further while giving direction for amalgamation, honourable High Court was not shown to have ordered

DCIT, Circle-1(1)-Exemption, New Delhi vs. Hamdard Laboratories (India), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1311/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri T James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 13(2)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 250

noted that as per landmark decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India any claim made otherwise than by filing of revised return cannot be entertained by the AO during the course of assessment proceeding, however, the said case does not apply to claims made before the Appellate ... Authorities otherwise than by Revised Return of Income, I find that there is plethora of decisions, ratio of which held that a fresh claim can be raised before the Appellate Authorities, even if it has not been raised before the Assessing Officer nor claimed in the Return of Income

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

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 67/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range ... issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range

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

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 49/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range ... issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range

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

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 236/VIZ/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range ... issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range

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

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 235/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range ... issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range

The Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The Asst. CIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 325/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range ... issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 12/VIZ/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range ... issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range

The ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 399/VIZ/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range ... issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 397/VIZ/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range ... issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 396/VIZ/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range ... issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. The ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, CO raised by the assessee is disposed off as discussed herein above

ITA 26/VIZ/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.25/Viz/2014 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2010-11) Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Vs. Addl. Cit, (Formerly Known As M/S. Range-1, Visakhapatnam Port Trust) Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaalv0035C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range ... issued and served on the assessee on 8/9/2011 by the DCIT, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam. The assessee in response to the notice, filed a revised return of income admitting the same income however, by claiming a higher TDS credit. Thereafter, the case has been assigned to the Addl. CIT, Range