revised return — 10,551 case laws

Frost & Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1259/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92Section 92C

Front & Sullivan (India) Pvt. Ltd. assessable; or (b) one year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under sub-section

DCIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Frost and Sullivan (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1148/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92Section 92C

Front & Sullivan (India) Pvt. Ltd. assessable; or (b) one year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under sub-section

Bushra Javed, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2003/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Bushra Javed, Vs. Acit, D-112, Circle Int. Taxation 2 Lower Ground Floor, (1)(1) Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi-110 017 Pan Afgpj3907C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vizay Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 48

that the assessee is a non-resident individual. She resides in London with her husband Mr. Khalid Hussain Kureshi. The assessee filed her revised return of income for AY 2018-19 on ITA No. 2003/ Del/2022 21.08.2018 declaring income of Rs. 45,290/-. Her case was selected under complete scrutiny

Aruna Tiwari, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

ITA 90/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Shri Murlimanohar Ramkishan Mundhra, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 158/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.158/Srt/2023 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Murlimanohar Ramkishan Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), (Old Ward- Mundhra, 301 To 308, Vs 1(2)(3) Surat, Aayakar Third Floor, Shree Krishna Market, Near Metro Tower, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Ring Road, Surat-395002 Surat-395001 Pan No: Aflpm 6057 P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sudhir Surana, Ca & Shri Om Prakash Soni, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr अपील पंजीकरण/Appeal Instituted On 03.03.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 03.05.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 18.07.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Ld. Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 13.01.2023 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.11.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal:- Murllimanohar R Mundhra “1. Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts Confirming The Reassessment Proceeding Initiated By The Ld. Ao, Without Properly Appreciating The Submission Of The Appellant.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 57

reason to believe that income has escaped assessment have been duly recorded. The Assessing Officer has obtained due sanction. The assessee has not filed revised return of income to revise his claim and the case law relied by assessee is also different from the facts of the present case ... Tribunal is misplaced. The interest expenses are not claimed as business expense under section 36(1)(iii) in the return of income and no revised return was filed within the prescribed time, if the assessees claimed expenses for the purpose of business then no such return was filed. Thus, confirmed

M/S. Jai Corp Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1325/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Jai Corp Limited Asst. Director Of Income Tax 11 & 12 B Mittal Tower, Free (Cpc) Bangalore Vs. Press Journal Marg, Mumbai- 400021 Pan No. Aaacj2591A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajesh P Shah Revenue By : Shri Sunny Mathews, Ar Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Mathews, AR

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 40Section 438Section 43B

mistake apparent from record at the time of filing of return, the appropriate natural course for correcting/revising the same would have been filing of revised return. But the aforesaid submission of the appellant does not contain even a whisper on this aspect of filing of revised return. Last

M/S. Jai Corp Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT (CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1324/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Jai Corp Limited Asst. Director Of Income Tax 11 & 12 B Mittal Tower, Free (Cpc) Bangalore Vs. Press Journal Marg, Mumbai- 400021 Pan No. Aaacj2591A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajesh P Shah Revenue By : Shri Sunny Mathews, Ar Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Mathews, AR

Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 40Section 438Section 43B

mistake apparent from record at the time of filing of return, the appropriate natural course for correcting/revising the same would have been filing of revised return. But the aforesaid submission of the appellant does not contain even a whisper on this aspect of filing of revised return. Last

Pinky Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 984/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

adhere the principles of natural justice went to the root of the matter. Also, the CBDT circular that permitted to the Assessee to file revised returns if he omitted to make a claim was also not noticed by the AO.” Therefore the Assessing Officer was bound to supply those statements

M/S. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust, Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 983/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

adhere the principles of natural justice went to the root of the matter. Also, the CBDT circular that permitted to the Assessee to file revised returns if he omitted to make a claim was also not noticed by the AO.” Therefore the Assessing Officer was bound to supply those statements

M/S. Gateway Financial Services Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 982/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

adhere the principles of natural justice went to the root of the matter. Also, the CBDT circular that permitted to the Assessee to file revised returns if he omitted to make a claim was also not noticed by the AO.” Therefore the Assessing Officer was bound to supply those statements

Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust, Kolkata vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2068/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

adhere the principles of natural justice went to the root of the matter. Also, the CBDT circular that permitted to the Assessee to file revised returns if he omitted to make a claim was also not noticed by the AO.” Therefore the Assessing Officer was bound to supply those statements

Accenture Solutions P Ltd (Asol), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & the Dy CIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1255/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/For Respondent: Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath

Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)

Appellant at Rs.2888,33,73,016 against a total income of Rs.2179,39,30,620 as reported by the Appellant in its revised return of income and determining a demand of Rs.2186,98,55,847 payable by the Appellant. P a g e | 2 Accenture Solutions Private Limited Vs. Add/Joint/Deputy/ACIT/ITO ... into the Appellant with an appointed date of 1 April 2015 ASPL merged into the Appellant with an appointed date of 1 April 2015. Revised return was filed pursuant to merger of ASPL into the Appellant wherein all income and corresponding TDS, advance tax, MAT credit, DDT pertaining to ASPL

Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 190/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.189 & 190/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Santosh Kumar Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Sector-6, Cda, Cuttack 6, Cda, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaspa 3698Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/0 /07/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mohit ShethFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 148

Nos.189 & 190/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 14. Ld Sr DR submitted that the penalty levied is on the difference between the revised return and the original return and the assessed return. It was the submission that the penalty is liable to be confirmed. 15. I have considered the submissions

Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Cuttack vs. ACIT, Circle- 2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 189/CTK/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack13 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.189 & 190/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Santosh Kumar Santosh Kumar Agarwala, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-2(1), Sector-6, Cda, Cuttack 6, Cda, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaspa 3698Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/07 7/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/0 /07/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Mohit ShethFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 148

Nos.189 & 190/CTK/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 14. Ld Sr DR submitted that the penalty levied is on the difference between the revised return and the original return and the assessed return. It was the submission that the penalty is liable to be confirmed. 15. I have considered the submissions