“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

Savla Agencies, Allahabad vs. JCIT, Range-I, Allahabad

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

ITA 28/ALLD/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad06 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2011-12 Savla Agencies, V. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, 26, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Range-I, Allahabad Allahabad-211001 Pan-Aawfs0816J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Tanmay Sadh, Adv Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.01.2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. Tanmay Sadh, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 40

account of the partners of the firm. The assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of Wholesale Trading. The assessee filed revised return of income on 19.11.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 23,53,830/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. During the scrutiny assessment

DCIT Cent. Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. M/S 63 Moon Technologies India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1509/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1509/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit –Cc-8(3) बिधम/ M/S. 63 Moon Room No. 656 6Th Floor, Technologies India Ltd Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Ft Tower, Cts No. 256- Mumbai- 400020. 257, Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf5737C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sukhsagar Syal Revenue By: Smt Riddhi Mishra (Cit-Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-56, Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: - “1. Whether On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Ao Without Appreciating The Fact He Proportionate Claim Of The Premium On Zccbs Written During The Tenure Of Zero Coupon Convertible Bonds Was Is In Nature Of Interest?" 1.1 “Whether On The Facts & Under The Circumstances The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting Disallowance Without Appreciating The Fact That The Claim

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt Riddhi Mishra (CIT-DR)

Section 115JSection 14A

careful consideration, we note that in this case, the assessee has claimed premium/Interest payable at maturity of Zero Coupon Convertible Bonds(ZCCB) in the revised return of income. In the accounts of the assessee the said amount was debited to the share premium account. But, in the computation of income

Raghavraj Ashok Bagri, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

without considering the fact that the assessee had made voluntary disclosure of the long term capital gains income while filing revised return of income and also during the course of assessment proceedings. It is, therefore, prayed that the penalty levied by the Learned AO be hereby deleted. Tax Effect - Rs.9

JCIT (OSD), New Delhi vs. Shri Gurinderjit Singh, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2715/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandrajcit Vs. Sh. Gurinderjit Singh Central Circle – 31, M/S. Krishna Continental New Delhi Ltd., 31.32, Community Centre, Saket, Pan No. Akups 3431 K New Delhi - 110017 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satish Khosla, Adv. Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Revenue By Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 29.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.01.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

initiated for A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2011-12 and for A.Y. 2012-13, the case was selected for scrutiny. Assessee thereafter filed revised return of income on 10.12.2013 declaring total income at Rs.2,85,82,880/-. Thereafter, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated ... assessee had declared total income of Rs.7,67,44,950/-. He noted that assessee had thereafter filed a revised return of income on 10.12.2013 declaring income of Rs.2,85,82,880/-. The assessee was asked to explain the reason for revising the return of income to which, assessee inter alia

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuttack vs. Paradeep Port Trust

ITA/90/2017HC Orissa05 Jan 2023

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

M/S. Ashim Kar & Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 523/KOL/2022[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)(a)Section 40

therefore there is no mistake in the order of AO. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the correct remedy was to file the revised return against the order AO CPC when the order is erroneous and the appellate forum is not a platform to provide another opportunity to assessee

Sameer Kishore Koticha, Mumbai vs. Dy.Comm of Income Tax 6(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1826/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Purnesh Gururani

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 23(2)Section 24Section 250

assessee filed his return of income on 30/07/2016, declaring a total loss of Rs. 1,09,61,771. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 23/02/2017, declaring a total loss of Rs. 1,08,81,242, after setting off and carrying forward of loss from house property ... revised return of income filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 28/05/2017, whereby the total income of the assessee was computed at Rs. 20,58,230 and set off of current year loss was restricted to Rs.2 lakh and carry forward

Vinod (Ratan) Suhalka, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/JODH/2019[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Jodhpur05 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

which was revised at Rs.37,36,900/- on 15-03- 2013. According to the AO (ACIT, CC-1), the revised return income u/s 153A comprises undisclosed income of Rs.35,80,000/- declared on account of undisclosed investment in property which was not disclosed in original return filed

Puran Singh Negi, Haldwani vs. The Assist Commissioner of Income Tax, Nanital

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

ITA 33/DDN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun04 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 33/Ddn/2020 (A.Y 2016-17)

Section 2Section 28Section 56

facts of the case are that, the assessee filed return for the Assessment Year 2016-17 declaring NIL income. Subsequently, the assessee has filed revised return declaring total income of Rs. 37,17,350/- (after availing deduction under Chapter VI (A) the revised return was selected for limited scrutiny ... issued. The scope of the scrutiny was limited and the reasons for selection for scrutiny are (i) increase in TDS/TCS claim in the revised return & (ii) large relief claimed u/s 89 of the Act. Subsequently the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued. The assessment order dated 07/09/2018

Teleperformance Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-5, Mumbai

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 976/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Teleperformance Global Vs. The Pr.Cit-5 Services Pvt Ltd., Room No. 515, 5Th Teleperformance Tower, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Plot Cst No. 1406 Mk Road, A/28 Mindspace Mumbai – 400020. Goregaon West Mumbai– 400 064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Shri H.N Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit)-5 Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri H.N Singh.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

change in registered office of the assessee company due to merger with M/s Servo BPO Pvt Ltd. The assessee has filed the revised return of income on 30.03.2015 disclosing a loss of Rs.68,50,30,783/-. The Assessing officer (AO) on perusal of the financial statements and Audit report ... submissions before the Pr.CIT and the facts dealt with respect to offering of income. Since the assessee has filed the revised tax audit report, revised return of income disclosing the income and expenses, hence there is no violation or error in the non consideration ITA Nos. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 Teleperformance Global

ACIT, Circle-21(1), New Delhi vs. Railtel Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, cross-objection of the Assessee is 15

ITA 8652/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Omprakash RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri A K Arora, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

initially processed 3 ITA.No.8652/Del./2019 CO No. 197/Del/2022 Railtel Corporation of India Ltd. u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Assessee thereafter filed revised return of income on 28.03.2013 declaring income of Rs. 21,72,67,398/- under the normal provisions of Income Tax and book profit

Shri Dipten Ahindra Bhowmick, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

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

ITA 134/RJT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 264Section 264(1)Section 40A(3)

Koshti Vs. CIT reported in 276 ITR 165 has held as under: 18. The position is, therefore, that, regardless of whether the revised return was filed or not, once an assessee is in a position to show that the assessee has been over-assessed under the provisions

Raman Mehta, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 949/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Ao That He Had Made A Wrong Claim In The Computation Of Income & Wanted To Correct The 2

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

income and wanted to correct the 2 ITA No.949/Del./2018 same by filing a revised computation of income. However, since there was no revised return of income, AO rejected the plea. The order of the AO in this regard read as under :- “6. The assessee has further submitted that ... supra) merely on the basis of revised computation of income cannot be accepted unless the assessee files a revised return of his income with the revised computation for making such claim since the assessing officer does not have the power to entertain a claim of deduction otherwise than by filing

Rajgopal Shankarlal Gilada, Kalaburagi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Bangalore

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 538/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 57

assessee filed the return of income on Page 2 of 4 31.8.2018 declaring an income of Rs.68,99,140. The assessee also filed revised return on 27.3.2019 showing an income of Rs.58,19,148. This revised return was further revised on 30.3.2019. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS ... loans against which the interest is claimed u/s. 57. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the AO has considered the first revised return filed on 27.3.2019 but failed to consider the 2nd revised return filed on 30.3.2019. Accordingly, the assessee prayed before the CIT(A) that the correct

ACIT Cent .Cir6(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kenneth Builders & Developers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2396/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Kenneth Builders & Of Income Tax, Cc-6(4) Developers Limited Room No. 1925, 19Th 15Th Floor, Tower – 1, Floor, Air India Building, Indiabulls Finance Center Nariman Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai- 400021 Elphistone, Mumbai - 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacck8268P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rakesh RanjanFor Respondent: K. Gopal & Om Kandalkar

Section 115JSection 143(2)

further noticed that in the original return of income the assesse had included this amount in the book profit, however, in the revised return of income this was not included in the total income or in the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. On query, the assesse explained that

DCIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. Md.Mafazzalur Rahaman, Keonjhar

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 144/CTK/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaita No. A No.144 /Ctk/2013: Assessment Year: Year: 2008-09 Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(2), Vs. Md Md Maffazalur Maffazalur Rahman, Rahman, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Serajuddin Serajuddin Square Square (Near (Near Masjid), Keonjhar. Masjid), Keonjhar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Abypr 0862 J (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.34/Ctk/2013 (In Ita No.144/Ctk/2013 3 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Md Md Maffazalur Maffazalur Rahman, Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(2), Serajuddin Serajuddin Square Square (Near (Near Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Masjid), Keonjhar Masjid), Keonjhar (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

Section 144Section 153A

case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC), wherein, it has been clearly held that in the absence of a revised return being filed, only the Appellate Authority can direct the Assessing Officer to consider the assessment on the basis of the computation of income, which

C.U. Inspections & Certifications India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1633/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1633/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1634/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Cu Inspections & बिधम/ Acit-15(1)(2) Certifications India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 483, Aayakar Vs. 2201, 2205,2206, 22Nd Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Floor, 2301 To 2306 23Rd Road, Mumbai-400020. Floor, B Wing, Arihant Aura, Plot No. 13/1, Ttc, Opp Turbhe Railway Station, Thane Belapur Road, Midc Side, Turbhe Navi Mumbai-400705. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecc7885N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. N. Motiwala Revenue By: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 18.05.2022 & For Ay. 2014-15 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri H. N. MotiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Hiren Bhatt (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)

basis, the assessee had credited the proportionate income declaring total income at Rs.2,93,89,060/- which return was subsequently revised twice. The final revised return was filed declaring total income of Rs.2,21,80,270/-. In the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO disagreed with

Ananya Ajay Mittal, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC6 (4), Mumbai

ITA 6949/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6949/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6950/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 576/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR

Section 153ASection 2Section 6(1)(b)Section 6(1)(c)

after the search proceedings when the undisclosed foreign bank account of Sh. Ananya Mittal came to notice (that the assessee while filing of the revised return in response to notice u/s 153A filed his status as a non resident. • Further the assessee in his submission dated 20.12.2016 has stated that ... carefully considered. The assessee had filed the return of income in the status of an ordinary resident but subsequently, during the assessment proceedings, filed revised return as a non resident. He had given evidence of his stay and stated that he was out of India for 212 days

Mwh India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. 9(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 3143/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhmwh India Private Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, 168, Udyog Bhavan, Circle-9(2)(3), Sonawala Road, Room No. 147B, Goregaon (East) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400 063 Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaca4613L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Niraj Sheth Respondent By : Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Mahita Nair

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234B

assesse cannot be deprived of exemption u/s 10A on the reason that the assesse has made claim u/s 10B, if any and not filed revised return of income for such exemption. In the case of M/s Cell Works Research India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, the ITAT Banglore held that when

Mousami Choudhury, Varanasi vs. Dy. CIT, Range - 02, Varanasi

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

ITA 214/VNS/2019[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.ArvindShukla, Adv. & Sh. AsimZafar, AdvFor Respondent: ShriA.K. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148

Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Mousami Choudhury, District Varanasi v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Varanasi furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever ... having furnished a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4), discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment