← 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

M/S. Dignagar Samabai Krishi Unnayan Samiti Ltd., Nadia vs. I.T.O., Ward - 41(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 683/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(ii)Section 80P

filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file revised return making such claim, its claim for deduction under section 80-IA is maintainable. Therefore, where assessee had filed return under section ... entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IA even if such claim was not made in original return but subsequently in revised return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati vs. M/S. Hitech Construction, Dhubri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 135/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

ITAT DELHI] reads as under: “Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - income disclosed by the assessee under Section 153A - assessee has filed revised returns disclosing higher income than in the original return - HELD THAT:- AO has not brought anything on record to assess any income over and above the returned Page ... particulars refers to filing of material which is not in conformity with the facts or truths The mere fact that the assessee has filed revised returns disclosing higher income than in the original return, in the absence of any other incriminating evidence, does not show that the assessee has "concealed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati vs. M/S. Hitech Construction, Dhubri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 134/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

ITAT DELHI] reads as under: “Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - income disclosed by the assessee under Section 153A - assessee has filed revised returns disclosing higher income than in the original return - HELD THAT:- AO has not brought anything on record to assess any income over and above the returned Page ... particulars refers to filing of material which is not in conformity with the facts or truths The mere fact that the assessee has filed revised returns disclosing higher income than in the original return, in the absence of any other incriminating evidence, does not show that the assessee has "concealed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Guwahati vs. M/S. Hitech Construction, Dhubri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 133/GTY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

ITAT DELHI] reads as under: “Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - income disclosed by the assessee under Section 153A - assessee has filed revised returns disclosing higher income than in the original return - HELD THAT:- AO has not brought anything on record to assess any income over and above the returned Page ... particulars refers to filing of material which is not in conformity with the facts or truths The mere fact that the assessee has filed revised returns disclosing higher income than in the original return, in the absence of any other incriminating evidence, does not show that the assessee has "concealed

Shri Bharat Arora, Punjab vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

In the result, the Ground no

ITA 309/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

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

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 46,060/- on account of reduction in revised return as compare to the original return, ignoring the fact that assessee did not file any revised return. 7. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete ... fact of the case is that the assessee had filed a return u/s 139. After receiving the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed a revised return u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee declared the taxable income in which return u/s 148 an amount of Rs.1,08,200/-. The assessee

ACIT, Circle- 20(2), New Delhi vs. Rcube Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6879/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma Ita No. 6879/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 269USection 27Section 53A

income of these years earlier shown under the head income from house property was declared as business income in the revised returns. 2.2 Ld. AO after taking into consideration the provisions of Section 269 U(f)(i) r.w.s. 53A of the transfer of property Act observed that : “5.3 The assessee

Navneet Dutta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 67(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2299/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vikram Kakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 24

Since the original returns was filed after the due date so the same cannot be revised. Hence, the loss from house property claimed in revised return is not tenable.” 4. Against the above order, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT (A). Ld. CIT (A) also rejected the assessee ... that assessee has inadvertently claimed lesser interest on house property loan. Assessee tried to rectify the mistake when he discovered the same by filing revised return but the same was not entertained by the authorities below and held that such claim cannot be revised

The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7245/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.7245/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम The State Trading Corporation Of Acit India Ltd., Vs. Circle 25(1), Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, C.R. Building, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaact0102F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 154Section 250

case and in law the learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the power to entertain claim for deduction other than by revised return is at the discretion of ITAT and not CIT(A), there by not adjudicating the additional ground for deduction of Rs. 105.94 crores and consequently dismissing

J C Antiques and Crafts, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

while initiating the penalty proceedings or imposing the penalty. Your honours would appreciate that assessee has in fact included higher income in revised return than that admitted during survey and has paid additional tax on it even though ld. CIT(A) in penalty proceedings has accepted that there ... material on record, we note that if the assessee has not declared the surrendered income in the return of income and also not filing revised return of income, then the case of the assessee would certainly fall in the category of furnishing incorrect particulars of income in the return

Anand Jhawar, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma, CIT &
Section 12ASection 138Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 263

dated 15.07.2016 for assessment year 2016-17 declaring a total income of Rs. 14,39,460/-. Further, the assessee filed his revised return of income under section 139(5) of the IT Act, 1961 on 09.02.2017 declaring the total income as declared in the original return. The case ... vide dated 15.07.2016 for A.Y. 2016-17 declaring a total income of Rs. 14,39,460/-. Further, assessee filed his revised return of income u/s. 139(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 09.02.2017 declaring total income amounting to Rs. 14,39,460/-. That assessee’s case was selected

Income Tax Officer vs. Vikram Sujitkumar Bhatia

C.A. No.-000911-000911 - 2022Supreme Court06 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

proceeding under this Chapter: Provided further that a person who has furnished a return under this clause shall not be entitled to file a revised return; (b) the assessing officer shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down in Section

Marudhamalai Sre Dhandapani Spinning Mills, Karamadai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 11/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 11/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Marudhamalai Sri Dhandapani Deputy Commissioner Of Spinning Mills, V. Income Tax, 142B Bettathapuram Pudur, Centralized Processing Centre, Karmadai Post – 641 104. Bengaluru – 560 500. [Pan: Aagfm-4590-F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)(a)Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

claim of deduction u/s.801A of the Act was denied amounting to Rs.20,70,31,480/- vide intimation dated 14.05.2018. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income vide acknowledgment No.627323361280518 dated 28.05.2018 and claimed deduction u/s.801A of the Act, as claimed originally and also filed audit report in Form no.1 ... return was revised by the assessee within the time limit available u/s.139(5) of the Act. The Department processed the return of income i.e., revised return filed on 28.05.2018, only on 23.05.2019 when the audit report in Form No.10CCB was available with the Department. It means that the Department

St. John Freight Systems Pvt. Ltd., Tutucorin vs. DCIT, CC-1, Madurai

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 2900/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80I

original return under Section 139, for the purposes of all other provisions of the Act, and once the Assessing Officer accepts the revised return filed under Section 153A on 13.06.2011 (Due date 30.06.2011), the original return under Section 139 abates and becomes non-est 3.3 The Appellant submits that ... with sub-s. (5), in which event, the consequences would be that as per sub-s. (5), the assessees themselves could voluntarily file a revised return, if they discover any omission or any wrong statement in the original return or alternatively, as per sub-s. (9), if the AO considers

St. John Freight Systems Ltd., Tuticorin vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Madurai

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 2899/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80I

original return under Section 139, for the purposes of all other provisions of the Act, and once the Assessing Officer accepts the revised return filed under Section 153A on 13.06.2011 (Due date 30.06.2011), the original return under Section 139 abates and becomes non-est 3.3 The Appellant submits that ... with sub-s. (5), in which event, the consequences would be that as per sub-s. (5), the assessees themselves could voluntarily file a revised return, if they discover any omission or any wrong statement in the original return or alternatively, as per sub-s. (9), if the AO considers

St. John Freight Systems Ltd., Tuticorin vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Madurai

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 2898/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80I

original return under Section 139, for the purposes of all other provisions of the Act, and once the Assessing Officer accepts the revised return filed under Section 153A on 13.06.2011 (Due date 30.06.2011), the original return under Section 139 abates and becomes non-est 3.3 The Appellant submits that ... with sub-s. (5), in which event, the consequences would be that as per sub-s. (5), the assessees themselves could voluntarily file a revised return, if they discover any omission or any wrong statement in the original return or alternatively, as per sub-s. (9), if the AO considers

St. John Freight Systems Ltd., Tuticorin vs. DCIT Central Circle 1, Madurai

In the result appeals filed in ITA Nos

ITA 188/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.188 & 2898 To 2900/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11 V. M/S.St.John Freight – The Dy. Commissioner- Systems Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, C-98, Sipcot Complex, Central Circle-1, Harbour Express Road, Madurai. Tuticorin-628 008. [Pan:Aaacs 4697 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, Adv. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.03.2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

For Appellant: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S.Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80I

original return under Section 139, for the purposes of all other provisions of the Act, and once the Assessing Officer accepts the revised return filed under Section 153A on 13.06.2011 (Due date 30.06.2011), the original return under Section 139 abates and becomes non-est 3.3 The Appellant submits that ... with sub-s. (5), in which event, the consequences would be that as per sub-s. (5), the assessees themselves could voluntarily file a revised return, if they discover any omission or any wrong statement in the original return or alternatively, as per sub-s. (9), if the AO considers

Sunbeam Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 235/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Dble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Range-9, New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. Cit Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Special Range-8, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Room No. 199A, New Delhi 110 017 C.R. Building, Pan Aabcs2948F New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Dcit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Circle-24(2) New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shashi M Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

Assessing Officer (“AO”) on 20.03.2014 under section 143(3) of the Act wherein he rejected the claim of the assessee made in the revised return that the receipt by it of the sales tax subsidy of Rs. 2,32,51,000/- was capital subsidy and proceeded to compute the total ... under section 14A and disallowance of foreign commission of Rs. 2,31,97,600/-. 2.2 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the revised return filed by the assessee was valid return; that the subsidy of Rs. 2,32,51,000/- received by & ITA No.235/Del/17 the assessee

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5127/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Dble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Range-9, New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. Cit Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Special Range-8, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Room No. 199A, New Delhi 110 017 C.R. Building, Pan Aabcs2948F New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Dcit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Circle-24(2) New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shashi M Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

Assessing Officer (“AO”) on 20.03.2014 under section 143(3) of the Act wherein he rejected the claim of the assessee made in the revised return that the receipt by it of the sales tax subsidy of Rs. 2,32,51,000/- was capital subsidy and proceeded to compute the total ... under section 14A and disallowance of foreign commission of Rs. 2,31,97,600/-. 2.2 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the revised return filed by the assessee was valid return; that the subsidy of Rs. 2,32,51,000/- received by & ITA No.235/Del/17 the assessee

Sunbeam Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4378/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Dble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Range-9, New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. Cit Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Special Range-8, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Room No. 199A, New Delhi 110 017 C.R. Building, Pan Aabcs2948F New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Dcit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Circle-24(2) New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shashi M Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

Assessing Officer (“AO”) on 20.03.2014 under section 143(3) of the Act wherein he rejected the claim of the assessee made in the revised return that the receipt by it of the sales tax subsidy of Rs. 2,32,51,000/- was capital subsidy and proceeded to compute the total ... under section 14A and disallowance of foreign commission of Rs. 2,31,97,600/-. 2.2 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the revised return filed by the assessee was valid return; that the subsidy of Rs. 2,32,51,000/- received by & ITA No.235/Del/17 the assessee

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara India Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2728/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri J.J. Mehrotra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 37

treat the same as business income. 6. The second additional ground is against the fact that the Assessing Officer has not considered the revised return though it was filed within the stipulated time. 6.1 The Assessing Officer is directed to verify if the revised return is legally correct and within ... time and if so he is directed to consider the revised return for the purposes of determining the taxable income for the year. 5. Against the above order, Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. As regards the disallowance