← 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

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 176/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

Assessing Officer has not validly assumed jurisdiction to make the assessment in the absence of issue of notice U/s. 143(2) on the valid revised return filed by the appellant though the revised return was duly considered while making the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 175/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

Assessing Officer has not validly assumed jurisdiction to make the assessment in the absence of issue of notice U/s. 143(2) on the valid revised return filed by the appellant though the revised return was duly considered while making the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 174/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

Assessing Officer has not validly assumed jurisdiction to make the assessment in the absence of issue of notice U/s. 143(2) on the valid revised return filed by the appellant though the revised return was duly considered while making the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 173/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

Assessing Officer has not validly assumed jurisdiction to make the assessment in the absence of issue of notice U/s. 143(2) on the valid revised return filed by the appellant though the revised return was duly considered while making the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance

Polisetty Somasundaram, Guntur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2020-21 is allowed

ITA 172/VIZ/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.172 To 180/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 To 2020-21) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of D.No. 8-24-31, Main Road, Income Tax, Mangalagiri Road, Central Circle-1, Guntur – 522001. Guntur. Pan: Aacfp 7251 J (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri M.V. Prasad, Ar ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B

Assessing Officer has not validly assumed jurisdiction to make the assessment in the absence of issue of notice U/s. 143(2) on the valid revised return filed by the appellant though the revised return was duly considered while making the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle-2), Raipur vs. Shri Vikas Kumar Fatehramka, Pandri

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 77/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Rpr/2022 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) The Assistant Commissioner – Shri Vikas Kumar Fatehramka Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, Vs Prop. Goyal Sales, Central Circle -2, Raipur. Behind Mata Garage, Near Jai Bhole Complex, Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) Pan No. : Aadpf 2412 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma. Sr. निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Dr Shri Ravi Agrawal, Ca सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/08/2023

For Appellant: DR Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma. Sr
Section 115Section 115BSection 133A

same has to be brought to tax under income from business, which the assessee has rightly done. 6. With regard to filing of revised return instead of submitting a revised computation before the AO, the Ld.AR submitted that according to the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court ... Ld.Counsel for the Revenue in the said case that the claim made by the assessee by way of application without filing a revised return is not allowable in accordance with judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. v. CIT reported

Legend Transport Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-15(2), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1613/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 234B

convinced. He held that the assessee has claimed TDS in original return. The assessee has also filed a revised return of income. In the subsequent revised return he has withdraw a claim of this TDS amount, but the Ld. CIT(A) found that this was after the start of scrutiny ... therein. He submitted that originally Chartered Accountant inadvertently claimed the TDS but later on the same was given up by way of filing of revised return of income. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that somebody has utilized the PAN of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Red Hat India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 351/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyaldcit – 15(3) (1), R. No. 460, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ...... Appellant Vs. M/S Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd,. A-201, 2Nd Floor, Supreme Business Park, Supreme City, Hiranandani Gardens Powai, Mumbai-400 076 Pan – Aaecm1763H ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Riddhi Mishra, CIT-DRFor Respondent: None
Section 250

declaring NIL income after set-off of brought forward losses of Rs. 25,40,93,477/-. Thereafter, assessee filed a revised return on 27-03-2013 again at NIL, but after set-off of brought forward losses of Rs. 30,36,05,076/-. This reflects that either assessee has reduced

Trak Services (P) Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(3), New Delhi

ITA 860/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Trak Services (P) Limited, Income Tax Officer, B-19, Defence Colony, Ward-16(3), New Delhi-110024 Vs C.R. Building, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Aaact0911A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. & Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 Order Per Shamim Yahya, Am

heard both the parties and perused the records. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that original return was filed on 18.03.2009 and revised return filed on 17.09.2010 declaring loss of Rs.16,68,409/-. After taking sale consideration of Rs.2,07,69,210/- (Rs.13.5/- per share) as per date

Deepak Kumar Rajoria, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bikaner

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(C)Section 274Section 80G

total income shown in Annexure II of TDS Return of employer in form 24Q and that shown in ITR. 2. Taxable income shown in revised return is less than the taxable income shown in the original return and large refund has been claimed. Assessee has claimed deduction Rs.5

Manak Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose as indicated above

ITA 1362/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C. आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 1362/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Manak Garg, Income Tax Officer, बनाम C/O. Saurav Rohatgi & Vs. Ward : 36 (3) Associates, G-2/7, Ganga Triveni Apartments, New Delhi. Sector : 9, Rohini, Delhi – 110 085. Pan No. Aespg0394M अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: C. A
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 292BSection 46A

profit at Rs.3,20,141/- being 33.33% of total business turnover. The appellant had sufficient time u/s 139(5) of the Act to file revise return of income to lower his N.P. if required. However, no such revised return was filed by the appellant

Meena Chandra ., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-29(4)/Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 511/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Meena Chandra Income-Tax Officer, Ward- Ee85/7, Sector Ii, Konark 29(4), Kolkata. Vs. Cooperative, Salt Lake, West Bengal-700091. (Pan: Aespc6072J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Mathur, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT (Sr.DR)
Section 143(1)Section 154

original return nor any original documents were furnished in support of the same. According to him, such claim should have been made by filing revised return and thus dismissed the appeal, by directing the Ld. AO to 4 Meena Chandra, AY 2009-10 verify the computation of tax liability

Mr Yogesh Dnyandeo Kinage, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1458/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Govind Menon
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 6(1)Section 90

Centralized Processing Center ("CPC"), Bengaluru by denying the relief claimed under section 90 of the Act of INR 1,72,390, in the revised return of income. The learned CIT(A) has erred in denying the relief on the ground that the Appellant has not filed Form-67 within ... filing of return of income prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the same was furnished alongwith the revised return of income wherein the foreign tax credit was claimed as prescribed under Rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The learned

Damco India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 154Section 250Section 253(1)

amounting to Rs. 1,10,00,000 paid was not claimed in the return of income. As the due date for filing the revised return of income had expired, the assessee approached the Assessing Officer (“AO”) by filing the rectification application under section 154 of the Act. Vide order dated ... relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities and submitted that this claim was neither made in the return of income nor any revised return of income was filed by the assessee and therefore the claim has been correctly rejected. 7. We have considered the submissions of both sides

Sarva Capital Llc, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(2), International Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2289/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice-Assessment Year: 2019-20 Sarva Capital Llc, Versus Acit, Circle 3(1)(2), C/O Dinesh Mehta & Co., Cas, International Taxation, 21, Dayanand Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan: Aaccl0102B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Hiren Mehta, Ca & Sh. Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Sh. Hiren Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

gain, however, claimed it as exempt in terms of Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA. Subsequently, on 13.03.2022, the assessee filed a revised return of income offering the long-term capital gain derived from sale of equity share of Veritas Finance Pvt. Ltd. under Article ... case Article 13 of India-Mauritius DTAA is applied. Thus, he submitted, the long-term capital gain wrongly offered to tax in the revised return of income is not taxable under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA. 11. Strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer

ITO(Exemption), Kolkata vs. Behala Navajivan Welfare Society, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 348/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2019-20 Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Behala Navajivan Welfare Kolkata. Society Vs. 166/8, Rai Bahadur Road, Behala, Kolkata-700034. (Pan: Aaatb6226D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akshat Meharia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT (Sr.DR)
Section 11Section 11(3)Section 143(1)Section 154

income by not appreciating the law that any claim of income or loss has to be made the assessee only through filing of revised return. 2. Whether from the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law by allowing appeal by holding that claim ... assessee is allowable even if the same has not been made through revised return.” 2 Behala Navajivan Welfare Society, AY 2019-20 3. Brief facts as recorded in the statement of facts furnished by the Ld. AO are that assessee is a Trust and filed its return on 23.03.2020 reporting

Dhananjay Madhukar Naik, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2988/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledhananjay Madhukar Naik V. Ito 12(3)(3) 306, Meghdoot Chsl, Sahaji Raje Marg Room No. 1631, 16Th Floor Koldongri, Vile Parle (W) Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400057 Mumbai- 400021 Pan: Alrpn7498M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Anil Masand Department Represented By : Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

complete Scrutiny for the reason that assessee has claimed large refund out of self-assessment tax and taxable income was revised in the revised return of income. 4. Facts relating to this case are assessee held 60% share in the inherited property at Bandra, Mumbai which was sold during F.Y.2013-14 ... assessment year 2017-18 was filed by the assessee on 28.02.2018 offering total income of Rs.5,33,10,929 and subsequently filed a revised return offering income of Rs. 88,72,770. 2. The amount deposited in the capital gains account scheme, under section 54 of the Act for exemption

Surajkiran Renewable Resources P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1432/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Ms. Meenu Minal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in dismissing the ground of appeal raised by the Appellant against the AO processing the revised return filed by it under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs. 1,19,02,895 as against income ... assessee on 15.02.2021 declaring book profit u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 at Rs.1,19,02,800/-. 2. The assessee filed revised return on 31.05.2021 declaring NIL income opting for new tax regime u/s 115BAA. 3. CPC processed the original return ignoring the revised return

ACIT Circle-54(1), New Delhi vs. National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India, New Delhi

ITA 3555/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Herin Mehta, CA, ShFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 10Section 14ASection 2Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(5)(d)Section 72Section 80

allowable deduction for A.Y. 2011- 12 and not allowing the said deduction alleging that the deduction has not been claimed in the original or revised return is contrary to the facts and bad in law. National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Vs. ACIT 4. That on the facts and circumstances

ACIT Circle-54(1), New Delhi vs. National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India, New Delhi

ITA 3554/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Herin Mehta, CA, ShFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 10Section 14ASection 2Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(5)(d)Section 72Section 80

allowable deduction for A.Y. 2011- 12 and not allowing the said deduction alleging that the deduction has not been claimed in the original or revised return is contrary to the facts and bad in law. National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Vs. ACIT 4. That on the facts and circumstances