“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

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

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

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

Religare Finvest Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi

In the result, -Appeal in ITA No

ITA 4796/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Delhi13 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 14A

being portion recovery of principal amount of asset included in lease rentals offered to tax; claimed offered by the appellant in revised return of income filed under section 139(5) of the Act. 2.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) grossly ... erred in holding that the action of appellant in claiming depreciation on vehicles given on finance lease by way of filing revised return of income is outside the scope/ mandate of section 139(5) of the Act. 2.2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case

Vivekananda Seva Trust, Tirupur vs. ACIT Exemptions, Coimbatore

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 380/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.379/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.380/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vivekananda Seva Trust Acit Exemptions बनाम K.Chettipalayam, Coimbatore. / Vs. Dharapuram Road, Tirupur-641 608. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaatk-6950-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N.V.Narayanan (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri D.Hema Bhupal (Jcit)- Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-07-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12-07-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Narayanan (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DR

Section 11Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

Return forms. The Ld. AR placed on record copy of ITR-7. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the time limit to file revised return of income was already over and therefore, the assessee should seek condonation of delay from appropriate authority. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal ... furnish return u/s 139(5) correcting the wrong entries in the original return of income. The new claim could not be entertained without revised return of income. 3. The assessee has filed rectification application with CPC on 08.05.2018 which got rejected vide order dated 20.06.2018. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed

Vivekananda Seva Trust, Tirupur vs. ACIT Exemptions, Coimbatore

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 379/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Narayanan (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D.Hema Bhupal (JCIT)- Ld. DR

Section 11Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

Longulf Trading (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle-10(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 990/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopallongulf Trading (India) Vs. Assistant Commissioner Private Limited, Of Income-Tax, Circle Time Square, A Wing, 5 Th 10(2)(1), Room No. 509, Floor, Unit 1/B, Andheri 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Kurla Road, J.B. Nagar, M.K. Road, S.O. Mumbai – 400059 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacl1075D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri S. Sriram Respondent By : Ratnakar Shelake Date Of Hearing 20.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi, Dated 17.02.2023 For A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Shri S. SriramFor Respondent: Ratnakar Shelake

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 264

facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Ld AO and the CIT(A) erred in concluding that non-filing of revised return by the Appellant for the A.Y. 2012-13 precludes the Appellant from seeking relief u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. The Appellant craves

Ate Enterprise Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 9(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1284/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleate Enterprise Pvt Ltd Income Tax Officer, No. 689 Veera Desai Central Circle 9(1)(1) बनाम/ Road, Azad Nagar S.O. Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Andheri (W) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400053. Mumbai- 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadca6166D (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 30.11.2017 disclosing a total loss of Rs.18,70,518/-. Subsequently, the assessee has filed the revised return of income on 24.09.2018 disclosing a total loss of Rs. 21,55,708/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the notice

Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 105/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blefuture Generali India Insurance Vs. National Faceless Appeal Company Limited Centre, Delhi 801/802, 8Th Floor Tower C, Embassy 247 Park L.B.S. Marg, Vikhroli (W) Tagore Nagar, S.O. Mumbai Pan: Aabcf0191R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234CSection 234FSection 250Section 80ASection 80J

assessee has filed its original return of income for the A.Y.2020-2021 on 15.02.2021 at 10:46:50 hrs and subsequently assessee has filed the revised return of income which the Centralized Processing Centre has considered as original return of income. It was observed by them that assessee has filed ... return of income belatedly. For some reason, the revised return of income filed was categorized as original return of income. Therefore, as per the provisions of section 80JJAA the assessee cannot claim any benefit under this section unless assessee files the return of income on time allowed

Sorthiya Ahir Gnatino Utaro, Bhavnath, Junagadh vs. The ADIT (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 104/RJT/2023[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2019-20 on 24-09-2019 declaring total income of Rs. 9,400/- and then filed revised return on 18-02- 2020 along with Form No. 10 namely “Statement of income accumulated by the Trust or set apart for carrying out the purpose ... assessee filed a Rectification Petition on 27-06-2020 informing that Form No. 10B was uploaded on 18-02-2020 along with the Revised Return and therefore requested to grant the benefit of exemption u/s. 11(2) of the Act. The above Rectification Petition was rejected vide order dated

Radha Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3437/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Imposing Tax On Assessee. The Action Of Authorities Below Is Wrong, Illegal, Bad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Beenu, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 234ASection 69C

amounting to 100s of crores. vi) Many such individuals have voluntarily, without any enquiry by any authority, withdrawn their claim and filed revised return offering such LTCG for taxation. 4 ITA No.3437/Del./2019 vii) In the statements recorded of brokers, entry operators, directors of paper companies that has bought these

R P Wood Products Pvt Ltd, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

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

ITA 302/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri C. M Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Shailendra Sharma (CIT) a

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

wanted to conceal the income. Even though the revised retum was found to be invalid, the AO accepted the income as declared in the revised return and computation. The AO did not bring any material on record that the declaration of income made by the assessee in his revised return ... these decisions were rendered with reference to the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c), the ratio of these judgements is that even though the revised return was found to be invalid, the AO accepted the income as declared in the revised return and computation. The AO did not bring

DCIT, C-7, Jaipur vs. Bharat Mohan Raturi, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

ITA 413/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goya, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 148Section 54Section 54F

same would be qualitatively different from making a fresh claim and, thus, assessee would be entitled to claim exemption under section 54F without filing revised return - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour of assessee]’ It is further submitted that the case of the assessee is better as he has claimed ... same would be qualitatively different from making a fresh claim and, thus, assessee would be entitled to claim exemption under section 54F without filing revised return - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour of assessee]’’ By considering the above decision, we also noticed that the case of the assessee is better

Gautam Arora, Chennai vs. DCIT(International Taxation)-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 354/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 354/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Gautam Arora Dcit, (International Taxation)- Flat No. 052, Block 40 Vs 1(1), Kolkata Dlf Garden City Near Psbb Millenium School Omr, Thalambur Chennai - 603103 [Pan : Aerpa7725B] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.A. Revenue By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 22, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 17/03/2021, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 128 (One Hundred Twenty Eight) Days In Filing The Present Appeal Before The Tribunal. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Delay, Owing To Pandemic Of Covid-19 During That Time. It Is Noted That The Period Of Delay Falls During The Time Of Pandemic Of Covid-19 Which Has Been Excluded By 2

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R

Section 250Section 5(2)

assessing the total income of the Appellant at Rs. 52,44,210/- as against the income of Rs. 10,83,317/- as per the revised return of income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Kolkata ("CIT(A)") has further erred in confirming the additions made in the impugned Order passed

Genesys International Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Banglore

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

ITA 440/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalgenesys International Corporation Ltd, 73A, Sdf Iii, 2Nd Floor, Seepz, Mumbai-400 096 Pan: Aaaca4528L ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-Cpc Bangalore, Karnataka-560500 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi & Ms. Madhuri TambeFor Respondent: Shri Nihal Ranjan Samal, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)

normal provisions of the act and an income of Rs 38,42,27,882/- u/s. 115JB of the act. Thereafter assessee filed a revised return on 04-02- 2019 at the same income. The return of the assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) vide order dated 17-11-2019. Vide

Jayesh Tokershi Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1108/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jayesh Tokershi Shah, The Dcit, Central Circle-2, 76, Laxmi Palace, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road, Mathuradasraod, Kandivali Vs. No. 16Z Wagle Industrial Estate, (West), Thane (West), Mumbai-400604. Mumbai-400067. Pan No. Aahps 5844 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Akshay JainFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Choughule, DR

Section 68

reversal of share of profit was done by the assessee in the capital account. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that assessee did not revised return of income also therefore issued show cause to the assessee as to why the said share of the income should not be treated as unexplained

M/S Mata Road Carriers, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri N.C.Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

above subject. 2. As desired, clarification sought on different points are as under: a. As desired, copies of original and revised return are enclosed herewith. b. Neither any search/or third party information was there which mandated assessee to file revised return. c. The issue raised by the assessee is regarding ... assessment by the Assessing Officer. This case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. This case was selected for scrutiny on the basis of revised return dated 22-03-' 2013 filed by the assessee u/s 153C r/w 153A. Copy of return and e-filing details is enclosed herewith for ready reference

DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma, Ajmer

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 209/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT) &

Section 132(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

explanation 5A is applicable to the search carried out after June 2007. Thus, the finding that the revised return could not be treated as voluntarily has no leg to stand considering the specific explanation provided in the Act. The other decision as relied upon by the AO in his penalty

DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Yashwant Kumar Sharma, Ajmer

In the result, both the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 208/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT) &

Section 132(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Satish Pandurang Pawar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik/

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 363/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.363/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani, Irs – Dr Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 24.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.2,36,100/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That Satish Pandurang Pawar [A]

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

original return the assessee had claimed deduction under Chapter-VIA of the Act of Rs.1,93,535/-. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return of Income on 28/11/2017 electronically admitting Total 2 Satish Pandurang Pawar [A] Income of Rs.3,03,190/- only. In this revised return the assessee had claimed Loss ... assessee had not claimed any loss of Rs.2 lacs under the “head Income from House Property”, which was claimed in the revised return dated 28.11.2017. The AO discussed the issue at length in the assessment order. The AO accepted Return of Income filed in response to notice under section

A.C.I.T., Circle - 40, Kolkata vs. M/S. Calcutta Dock Labour Board, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 689/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 43B

Thereafter, the return was revised on the same day. The appellant has incurred business loss of Rs.2,97,80,049/- as per revised return and the same has been carried forward in the next year. The appellant, during the year, has paid area Pension, Gratuity, Leave Encashment and Bonus amounting

ACIT, Cen.Cir. 3(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Surya Alloy Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 553/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 244ASection 245CSection 245DSection 245D(4)Section 251

Disclosure considered in 153A return 38,41,58,000 Income as per return filed 153A on 17.11.2020 of (-)Rs.34683331/- Income as per revised return filed (-)14,55,25,331 153A on 17.09.2021 manually Add : Additional Income u/s 245C 3,08,25,000 Revised total income

M/S Manipal Technologies Limited, Udupi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Udupi

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

ITA 325/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

duly filed the return of income on 26.9.2012, declaring loss of Rs.6,26,56,730 and book profit computed under section 115JB. Subsequently, filed revised return of income on 26.3.2013 for giving effect to additional TDS as per 26AS. The return was initially processed under Section