← 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

ACIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Essar Shipping Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statisti...

ITA 87/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Circle 5(1)(1), M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., R. No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, Essar House, 11, K K Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rishav PatawariFor Respondent: Mr. Mudit Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 115VSection 36(1)

raised by the assessee in spite of the assessee's by the assessee in spite of the assessee's erroneous act of not filing revised return of income even erroneous act of not filing revised return of income even erroneous act of not filing revised return of income even after ... erred in allowing the claim of the CIT(A) has not erred in allowing the claim of the assessee not made through the revised return and assessee not made through the revised return and assessee not made through the revised return and instead made through addition ground instead made through

Thermo Fisher Scientific India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 769/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Thermo Fisher Scientific India Dy. Cit-15(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 360, Aayakar Vs. 403-404, ‘B’ Wing, Delphi, Bhavan, New Marine Lines, Hiranandani Business Park, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Aabct 3207 A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Mr. Mudit Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 43(1)

ground that the same was not made by filing revised goodwill on the ground that the same was not made by filing revised return of income, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Dispute return of income, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Dispute return of income, which

M.P.Re-Cycling Co. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 488/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2016-2017
Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

that, if any person has furnished a return u/s.139(1) & 139(4) discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before three months prior to the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever ... Cycling Co. Pvt.Ltd has to be filed within the due date as prescribed u/s. 139(1). 139(4) provides for filing of revised return within the period prescribed therein and subsection (5) of 139 provides that any person may file revise return if he discovers any omission or any wrong

DCIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Rustomjee Evershine Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2013-14 &

ITA 1825/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. Cross Objection No. 27/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rustomjee Evershine Joint बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Venture Vs. Global City, Narangi Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Bypass Road, Close To Viva Road, Churchgate, College, Virar (W), Virar- Mumbai-400020. 401303. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1824 & 1825/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar7687M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT)

building property was included the closing stock in the balance sheet drawn for the business. The Assessee has filed the revised returned submitting that a part of its property was given on rent and the income derived on that basis should be computed under the head income from house property ... property, one of the building properties was included in the closing stock in the balance-sheet drawn for the business. The assessee filed a revised return submitting that a part of its property was given on rent and the income derived on that basis should be computed under the head

DCIT Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Rustomjee Evershine Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2013-14 &

ITA 1824/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. Cross Objection No. 27/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rustomjee Evershine Joint बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Venture Vs. Global City, Narangi Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Bypass Road, Close To Viva Road, Churchgate, College, Virar (W), Virar- Mumbai-400020. 401303. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1824 & 1825/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar7687M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT)

building property was included the closing stock in the balance sheet drawn for the business. The Assessee has filed the revised returned submitting that a part of its property was given on rent and the income derived on that basis should be computed under the head income from house property ... property, one of the building properties was included in the closing stock in the balance-sheet drawn for the business. The assessee filed a revised return submitting that a part of its property was given on rent and the income derived on that basis should be computed under the head

DCIT Central Circel-2(4), Mumbai vs. Rustomji Evershine Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue for AY 2013-14 &

ITA 1349/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. Cross Objection No. 27/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1349/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Rustomjee Evershine Joint बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Venture Vs. Global City, Narangi Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Bypass Road, Close To Viva Road, Churchgate, College, Virar (W), Virar- Mumbai-400020. 401303. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1824 & 1825/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit, Central Circle-2(4) बिधम/ Rustomjee Evershine Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Joint Venture Vs. Prathishtha Bhavan, M. K. Global City, Narangi Road, Churchgate, Mumbai- Bypass Road, Close To 400020. Viva College, Virar (W), Virar-401303. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaar7687M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Kumar Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. Cit) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule (Addl. CIT)

building property was included the closing stock in the balance sheet drawn for the business. The Assessee has filed the revised returned submitting that a part of its property was given on rent and the income derived on that basis should be computed under the head income from house property ... property, one of the building properties was included in the closing stock in the balance-sheet drawn for the business. The assessee filed a revised return submitting that a part of its property was given on rent and the income derived on that basis should be computed under the head

Ntpc Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. PCIT-06, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 145/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 119Section 143Section 143(3)Section 156Section 263

business of trading of Energy and fly ash and it's related products. For the year under consideration NVVN duly filed it's revised return of income of 15.6.2016 declaring profit of Rs. 98,84,52,500/- Thereafter, the case was selected under CASS for complete scrutiny wherein the income

M/S. Chandrika Investments vs. The Income-Tax Officer

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/103/2017HC Karnataka28 Jul 2023

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

Section 133ASection 260

Assessee filed its returns for A.Y.3 2009-10 on 17.03.2010 declaring a total income of Rs.3,42,45,991/-. Subsequently, it filed revised returns on 31.03.2010 declaring a total income of Rs.1,27,50,050/-. 4. The AO4 passed the assessment order making certain additions. On appeal ... Section 142(1) of the Act, assessee filed its returns declaring a total income of Rs. 3,42,45,991/-. Subsequently it filed a revised return declaring a sum of Rs.1,27,50,050/-. The AO processed and framed the assessment. Feeling aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 17-08-2018 which was duly served upon the assessee through e-file portal. Thereafter, revised return of income was filed on 13-02-201 wherein the total income was declared at Rs.10,59,16,20,290/- for claim of TDS. The assessee

M/S. Dosch Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-9(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1480/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jose PulikkodanFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 154Section 250Section 36

assessee filed its return of income on 30/09/2015, declaring a total income of Rs.3,95,99,830. Subsequently 20/10/2015, the assessee filed its revised return of income. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 143(2) as well as section

Tushar James, Bangalore vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1479/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2020-21
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

learned NFAC has erred in confirming non grant of foreign tax relief amounting to Rs. 50,525 as claimed by the appellant in the revised Return of Income. 2.2 The learned NFAC erred in not appreciating fact that the income of Rs. 8,30,123 is doubly taxed ... India-Sri Lanka tax treaty. 2.3 The learned NFAC has erred in facts that no Form 67 was filed along with the revised return and consequently denying foreign tax relief to the appellant. 2.4 The learned NFAC has erred the not considering the Form 67 and other document submitted along

Tushar James, Bangalore vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 1478/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2019-20
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Laxmi Kanth, D.R
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

learned NFAC has erred in confirming non grant of foreign tax relief amounting to Rs. 50,525 as claimed by the appellant in the revised Return of Income. 2.2 The learned NFAC erred in not appreciating fact that the income of Rs. 8,30,123 is doubly taxed ... India-Sri Lanka tax treaty. 2.3 The learned NFAC has erred in facts that no Form 67 was filed along with the revised return and consequently denying foreign tax relief to the appellant. 2.4 The learned NFAC has erred the not considering the Form 67 and other document submitted along

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3674/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry /Manish PadhiarFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 194Section 250Section 40

forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs 330,629,157/-. Tax of Rs 124, 22, 95,483/- was paid on book profits. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 01.04.2010 declaring a total income of Rs Nil after set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation ... forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs 2,345,926,810/-. Tax payable on book profits was revised to Rs 125,84,49,329/-.The second revised return was filed on account of reducing the claim of expenses paid to IBM under finance lease. 5. Case of the assessee was selected

Idea Cellular Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm of Income Tax-Circle 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3424/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry /Manish PadhiarFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar, CIT-DR
Section 194Section 250Section 40

forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs 330,629,157/-. Tax of Rs 124, 22, 95,483/- was paid on book profits. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 01.04.2010 declaring a total income of Rs Nil after set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation ... forward unabsorbed depreciation of Rs 2,345,926,810/-. Tax payable on book profits was revised to Rs 125,84,49,329/-.The second revised return was filed on account of reducing the claim of expenses paid to IBM under finance lease. 5. Case of the assessee was selected

DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. Srf Limited, New Delhi

ITA 1747/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 92C

expenditure was approved by DSIR at Rs.631.42 lacs. The assessee could not revise the claim because the period for filing the revised return of income had elapsed. While scrutinizing the return of income and on the basis of the approval by DSIR the AO allowed the claim of deduction

Vinodbhai Rambhai Parmar, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Vinodbhai Rambhai Parmar, I.T.O., E-5, 1St Floor, Abhishek Park, Vesu, Ward-2(3)(4), Vs. Surat. Surat. Pan: Attpp 7898 M Appellant Respondednt

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)

hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee was confronted about the fact that the assessee has filed revised computation of income without filing revised return of income. It was also confronted that the Assessing Officer has accepted the revised computation in absence of revised return of income thereby accepted additional ... revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR submits that the assessee filed revised computation of income without filing revised return and acceptance thereof was not within the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetz (India

DCIT Corporate Circle 1 (2), Chennai vs. M/S Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 1716/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1716/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd., Income Tax, No. 3, Narbavi, Lakshmanan Street, Corporate Circle 1(2), T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aabcc2667F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2023 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) 1, Chennai, Dated 07.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By Two Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay, To Which; The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since The Revenue Was Prevented By 2

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 35Section 356Section 80I

short]. In the original return of income, the assessee has claimed only 100% deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. However, in the revised return of income, the assessee claimed deduction under section 356(2AB) of the Act at 200%. The return filed by the assessee was selected

Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-2 vs. Heidrick and Struggles Inc

ITA - 396 / 2023HC Delhi25 Jul 2023
Section 143(1)Section 154

revenue authorities ought not to Have rejected the application u/s 154 of the Act on the ground that the assessee has riot filed the revised return of income. Further in the case of CIT v. Bharat General Reinsurance Co. Ltd. 81 ITR 303 (Del) (Hon'ble Delhi High Court

Schott Poonawalla Private Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Mumbai

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

ITA 1576/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy S Schottpoonawallapvtltd, Cit(A)/Nfac, 13, 1St Floor,Plot.No.228, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Mittal Chambers, M.K.Road, Vs. Barristerrajnipatelmarg, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack2310G (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri. Subhash S Shetty.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Avinash Karpe.DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

book profits computed u/s 115JB of the Act of Rs.57,83,60,694/-, further the assessee has filed the revised return of income on 30.05.2018 disclosing a total income of Rs.74,89,24,830/- and book profits computed u/s 115JB of the Act of Rs. 57,83,60,694/-. Subsequently

F I L Industries Private Limited, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jammu

The appeal of the assessee is disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 72/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 40Section 80I

above, the issue is further settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court (Supra) that such claims are even not permissible by way of revised return of income except where there is an omission or a wrong statement. 6.5 Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the issue