← 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.Kannan Devan Hills Plantations Company P. Ltd, Idukki vs. The ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 27/COCH/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Rohini Thampy, CA
Section 10Section 10(30)Section 30Section 801ASection 80I

appellant. It is not in dispute that no deduction u/s.80IAm was claimed in the Return of Income. No claim was made through filing a revised Return of Income. In the meanwhile, Hon'ble Kerala High Court passed an order allowing deduction u/s. 801A for A.Y. 2008-09. The deduction claimed ... does not in any way relate to the power of the assessing officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited

Rajan Setia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/123/2022HC Punjab & Haryana29 Mar 2023

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

reference. In response to notice under Section 153A of the Act, it is found to be a clear case of making surrender in the revised return of the income, after detection of concealment by the Department as a result of search of incriminating documents in the course of search ... Mool Chand (1978) Mahesh Chand vs. CIT 115 ITR 1 (All.) on the proposition that disclosure was made by the assessee in the revised return in response to 148(A) of the Act after search operation and in the revised returns, the assessee disclosed much larger incomes without justification than

Srei Equipment Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 163/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

Finance Limited. depreciation to the tune of Rs. 87,08,860/- without appreciating the fact that appellant had itself withdrawn the claim in the Revised Return of Income and hence it was never allowed by the Assessing officer in the order u/s 143(3). 7. That the appellant craves ... stated that the assessee has suo- moto added the CSR expense in the computation of total income filed with the revised return of income and therefore, there is no prejudice caused to the Revenue. As regards the excess depreciation of Rs. 87,08,860/- ld. AO has allowed the depreciation

ACIT, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2796/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 801ASection 80I

gross total income. He has further stated that since for the year under consideration, the assessee‟s claim for deduction u/s. 80IA as per revised return of Rs. 557,24,83,941 was lower than the business income of Rs.1028,45,30,159, the issue of restricting the deduction ... fact that the assessee has already considered a disallowance of Rs. 13,92,89,519 while computing the book profits u/s. 115JB in the revised return of income filed on 16.02.2018. M/s. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. 32. Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition made

Reliance Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2590/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017
Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 801ASection 80I

gross total income. He has further stated that since for the year under consideration, the assessee‟s claim for deduction u/s. 80IA as per revised return of Rs. 557,24,83,941 was lower than the business income of Rs.1028,45,30,159, the issue of restricting the deduction ... fact that the assessee has already considered a disallowance of Rs. 13,92,89,519 while computing the book profits u/s. 115JB in the revised return of income filed on 16.02.2018. M/s. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. 32. Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the addition made

ACIT Cent. Cir -7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. D.Y.Patil Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee as well as CO are allowed

ITA 2299/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2299/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1957/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Cross Objection No. 63/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Acit, Cc-7(1) R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatd8919M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr)/Smt. Mahita Nair Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/03/2023

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (DR)/Smt
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

assessee is otherwise prevented from making any new claim in the course of assessment before the AO other than by way of revised return of income [Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT (284 ITR 323)]. This shows that a vested right of the assessee was taken away by the inaction/omission

ACIT CC -7(1), Mumbai vs. Dr. D.Y.Patil Education Society, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee as well as CO are allowed

ITA 2298/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2299/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1957/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Cross Objection No. 63/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Acit, Cc-7(1) R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatd8919M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr)/Smt. Mahita Nair Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/03/2023

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (DR)/Smt
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

assessee is otherwise prevented from making any new claim in the course of assessment before the AO other than by way of revised return of income [Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT (284 ITR 323)]. This shows that a vested right of the assessee was taken away by the inaction/omission

D.Y.Patil Education Society, Kolhapur vs. DCIT Cent. Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee as well as CO are allowed

ITA 1957/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2299/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Acit, Cc-7(1) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1957/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Dcit, Central Circle-7(1) 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Cross Objection No. 63/Mum/2022 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2298/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) बिधम/ Dr. D. Y. Patil Education Acit, Cc-7(1) R. No. 676B, 6Th Floor, Society Vs. 869, E, Ward, Kasaba Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vawada, Kolhapur-416006. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatd8919M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (Dr)/Smt. Mahita Nair Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/03/2023

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (DR)/Smt
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

assessee is otherwise prevented from making any new claim in the course of assessment before the AO other than by way of revised return of income [Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT (284 ITR 323)]. This shows that a vested right of the assessee was taken away by the inaction/omission

Gridco Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 42/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Orissa Ltd. Janapath, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.V.Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 29 /03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 /03/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P.V.Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 80

Assessment Year: 2014-15 assessment year on 29.11.2014 showing positive income. Subsequent to the audit of the assessee’s account, the assessee filed revised return u/s.139(5) on 24.6.2015 disclosing a loss of Rs.306 crores. Subsequently, on 18.2.2016, the assessee filed another revised return disclosing loss of Rs.660 crores ... return u/s.139(3) of the Act. It was the submission by ld AR that consequent to this view, the Assessing Officer rejected the revised return filed by the assessee and proceeded with the assessment by considering the original return. It was the submission by ld AR that the assessee

M/S. Gridco Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 148/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Orissa Ltd. Janapath, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.V.Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 29 /03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 /03/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P.V.Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 80

Assessment Year: 2014-15 assessment year on 29.11.2014 showing positive income. Subsequent to the audit of the assessee’s account, the assessee filed revised return u/s.139(5) on 24.6.2015 disclosing a loss of Rs.306 crores. Subsequently, on 18.2.2016, the assessee filed another revised return disclosing loss of Rs.660 crores ... return u/s.139(3) of the Act. It was the submission by ld AR that consequent to this view, the Assessing Officer rejected the revised return filed by the assessee and proceeded with the assessment by considering the original return. It was the submission by ld AR that the assessee

Parshwa Print Pack Pvt. Ltd., Wadhwan vs. The Assistant Commr. Income Tax, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar

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

ITA 311/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

which the income was first 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

Parshwa Print Pack Pvt. Ltd., Wadhwan vs. The Assistant Commr. Income Tax, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar

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

ITA 310/RJT/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Mar 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

which the income was first 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

Parshwa Printpack Pvt. Ltd., Surendranagar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Surendranagar

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

ITA 248/RJT/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

which the income was first 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

Kamal Kishore Rathi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), Mumbai

ITA 6812/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

section 143(3) & 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) was initiated and in response thereto the assessee has filed revised return on 26.03.2011 declaring income of 3 Shri Kamal Kishore Rathi Rs.4,43,700/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the original return ... filed within time and the revised return was held as nonest and invalid. The AO thereafter framed the assessment on 20.03.2014 at the income of Rs.7,58,670/-. 3. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed. Thereafter the assessee filed the appeal before

Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd., Durg vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 85/RPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 85/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bhilai Jaypee Cement Ltd. 14-B, F- Pocket, Maroda Sector, Bhilai Township, Bhilai, Dist. Durg (C.G.)-490 006 Pan : Aadcb1675Q

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Dhody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

A.Y.2012-13 on 30.09.2012, declaring an income of Rs. Nil. i.e. claiming loss of Rs. (-)1,39,07,79,608/-. The assessee, thereafter filed a revised return of income declaring an income of Rs. Nil i.e. after claiming a loss of Rs.1,39,26,29,502/-. Subsequently, the case

Emc Software and Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms mentioned above

ITA 191/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (D.R)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92D

consideration of Rs. 5,44,88,09,165/- and ITeS for a consideration of Rs. 9,78,84,20,470/-. The assessee filed revised return of income electronically for the assessment year 2016-17 on 29/11/2016 declaring income of Rs.114,58,13,730/- after claiming a deduction under Chapter

M/S Piramal Capital & Housing Finance Limited (Formerly Known As Dewan Housing Finance Corporation Limited), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 160/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Mr.Ronak Doshi,&For Respondent: Mr. Sunku Srinivasu.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

return of income for the 2015-16 on 31.08.2015 disclosing a total loss of Rs.100,70,16,074/-. Further the assessee has filed the revised return of income with a loss of Rs. 101,87,76,664/- and the return of income was processed

Yaboho New Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Centralized Processing Centre, Income Tax Department, Bengaluru

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

ITA 3065/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Yoboho New Media Vs. Cpc, Pvt Ltd, Income Taxdepartment Ground Floor, Bengaluru. Mezzanine Floor, Crystal Karnataka-560500. House, Plot No. 79, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli Naka, Worli, Mumbai – 400018. Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc12112A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Dharan Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Smt. Sonia Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 143(1) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sonia Kumar.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 40

income for the A.Y 2019-20 on 29.11.2019 disclosing a total income of Rs. 32,08,10,280/-. Subsequently the assessee has filed the revised return of income on 16.07.2020 with the total income of Rs.31,46,50,190/-.Whereas the return of income was processed

DCIT Central-Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1946/MUM/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

said search action. The assessee was engaged in the business of builders and developers during previous year under consideration. The assessee has filed revised return of income on 26/10/2011 declaring Nil income after claiming set off of brought forward loss amounting to Rs.44,54,72,764/-. A notice under section ... submitted before the Ld.CIT(A) that in the original return of income for A.Y.2012-13, it has duly made this claim. However, while filing the revised return of income, the same remained to be claimed. The Ld.CIT(A) has, however, dismissed the claim of the assessee. 21. Heard both the sides

DCIT Cent. Cir -8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Allcargo Logistic Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2046/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit C.Cir 8(1), Vs. All Cargo Logistic Ltd Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Avvashya Aayakar Bhavan, House, Cst Road, Mk Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400098. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca2894D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Manoj Kumar Sinha.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Madhur Agrawal, Mr Fenil Bhatt & Mr. Chimanlal Dangi.Ar Date Of Hearing 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai, Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Manoj Kumar Sinha.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Madhur Agrawal, Mr Fenil
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 4Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

total income of Rs.106,95,00,730/- and claimed deduction u/s 80IA(4)(i) of the Act, further the assessee has filed the revised return of income disclosing a total income of Rs.107,26,81,550/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice