← 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

Mousami Choudhury, Varanasi vs. Dy. CIT, Range - 2, Varanasi

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

ITA 213/VNS/2019[201-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi28 Dec 2022

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4082/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 40A(2)(b)

questions of law : (A) Whether, an assessee can amend a return filed by him for making additional claim for deduction other than filing a Revised Return? (B) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in law, was right in holding that ... claim of deduction not made in the original return and not supported by a revised return, is admissible? (C) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in law, was right in not appreciating the fact that the AO has no power

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4073/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 40A(2)(b)

questions of law : (A) Whether, an assessee can amend a return filed by him for making additional claim for deduction other than filing a Revised Return? (B) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in law, was right in holding that ... claim of deduction not made in the original return and not supported by a revised return, is admissible? (C) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in law, was right in not appreciating the fact that the AO has no power

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4072/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 40A(2)(b)

questions of law : (A) Whether, an assessee can amend a return filed by him for making additional claim for deduction other than filing a Revised Return? (B) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in law, was right in holding that ... claim of deduction not made in the original return and not supported by a revised return, is admissible? (C) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in law, was right in not appreciating the fact that the AO has no power

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Raymond Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 202/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23Section 40A(2)(b)

questions of law : (A) Whether, an assessee can amend a return filed by him for making additional claim for deduction other than filing a Revised Return? (B) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in law, was right in holding that ... claim of deduction not made in the original return and not supported by a revised return, is admissible? (C) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal, in law, was right in not appreciating the fact that the AO has no power

Essar Investments Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2195/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D Hande
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)

erred in assessing the Appellant's total income at a loss of Rs.27,88,16,988/- as against the returned loss (as per revised return) of Rs.87,10,07,508/-. 2. The AO erred in making an addition of Rs.46,69,44,000/- on account of the arm's length

Rajinder Singh Sadana, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED FOR STATISTCAL PURPOSE in above terms

ITA 144/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 144/Rpr/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 L/H Smt Paramjeet Kaur Sadana D-102, Jainam Plannet, Mandi Rd. Raipur – 492009, Chhattisgarh . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan: बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle 4(1), Raipur. द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By :Shri Veekaas S. Sharma :Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 22/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 21/03/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Dove Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 30/01/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54FSection 80

capital loss were neither finds place in belated ITR nor made in course regular assessment proceedings and contended that, in the absence of revised return, in ITAT-Raipur Page 4 of 6 L/H Smt Paramjeet Kaur Sadana ITA No.144/RPR/2019 AY: 2012-13 the light of section

Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia. Legal Heir of Hasmukhlal Patadia., Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-!(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee had initially filed return of income showing agricultural income of Rs.15 lakhs. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee filed revised return of income wherein the claim of agricultural income was enhanced to Rs.2.81crores (which was 1872% higher). The AO. did not apply his mind to this aspect

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Britannia Industries Ltd

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/211/2022HC Calcutta23 Dec 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 35

income for the assessment year under consideration (A.Y. 2016-2017) on 30.11.2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 1062,44,65,120/-. Subsequently revised return was filed on 27.03.2018 declaring a total income of Rs. 1054,14,38,420/- and the case was selected for scrutiny and notices under Section

Hitesh Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-5(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2370/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Biren Gabhawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 271(1)

which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 17.04.2011. It is also not in dispute that the assessee filed revised return of income on 09.02.2012, which was again processed under section 143(1) vide 4 M/s. Hitesh Jitendra Parikh order dated 28.03.2012. It is also ... declaring Rs.Nil income after claiming deduction under chapater VIA at Rs.91,833/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter revised return of income was filed on 09.02.2012 declaring total income at Rs.4,42,780/- which was also processed under section

M/S Engineers India Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner

WA/3127/2018HC Karnataka22 Dec 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 4

management services for setting up PFCCU5, SRU6, SPM7 and PPU8. Assessee filed returns under the KVAT Act disclosing sales of Rs.72.01 Crores and filed revised returns showing sale of Rs.95.76 Crores; and claimed exemption from payment of tax. 4. The AO9 disallowed10 petitioner’s claim of transit sales while

Shri Altaf Husain Lashkar, Cashar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Silchar, Silchar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 139(5)Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.21,95,079/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that originally the assessee has returned salary income at Rs.19,99,880/-. However, in the revised return, he has reduced the original salary income. A brief look on the record would suggest that assessee had received a sum of Rs.3 ... claimed a sum of Rs.2,28,403/- as value of perquisites. This was not included in the taxable income filed by way of a revised return. The ld. Assessing Officer has made the addition of both the amounts. He initiated the penalty proceeding 2 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shri Altaf

Ravi Prakash Srivastava, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 7(1), Near Vidhan Sabha Building

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

ITA 273/JPR/2021[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 5

declaring a net taxable income of Rs.8,68,64/- was filed on 01-07-2009. The assessee has filed revised return on 24-09-2010 declaring net taxable income at Rs.7,78,370/-. Both these returns had been selected for scrutiny in view of CASS and the AIR information revealed ... Axis Bank Ltd. A Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 20-08-2010 (original return) and on 26-08-2011 (revised return) which was duly served upon the assessee. Subsequently, a notice u/s 142(1)/142(2) of the Act was issued

Ramanbhai Bholidas Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 84/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Dec 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT/D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

Amitabh Bachchan [2016]69 taxmann.com 170[SC] v) Where no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer in passing assessment order after accepting revised return filed by the assessee. Commissioner was well within his powers under Section 263 to direct fresh assessment Virbhadra Singh (HUF) vs PCIT [2017] 86 Taxmann.com

M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2214/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2213-2214/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Pushkar Corporation, D.C.I.T., 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Vs. Central Circle-1(4), Ioc Road, Ahmedabad. Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2345-2346/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Ahmedabad. Ioc Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT.D.R with Shri V.K. Mangla, JCIT, D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40ASection 69C

person— (a) fails to make the return required [under sub-section (1) of section 139] and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of that section, or (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under

M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2213/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2213-2214/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 M/S. Pushkar Corporation, D.C.I.T., 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Vs. Central Circle-1(4), Ioc Road, Ahmedabad. Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 2345-2346/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 D.C.I.T., M/S. Pushkar Corporation, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. 27, Nakshatra Arcade, Ahmedabad. Ioc Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co. “Kamal Shanti” Besides Bank Of Baroda, Nr. Sardar Patel Under Bridge, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aalep1840Q

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT.D.R with Shri V.K. Mangla, JCIT, D.R
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 40ASection 69C

person— (a) fails to make the return required [under sub-section (1) of section 139] and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of that section, or (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under

Shri Jk Ramesh Gandhi, Panruti vs. DCIT, Cuddalore Cirlce, Cuddalore

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

ITA 547/CHNY/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.547/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri J.K.Ramesh Gandhi, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 190, Annai Indira Gandhi Salai, Of Income Tax, Panruti-607 108. Cuddalore Circle, Income Tax Office, Soorappa Naicken Chavadi, Cuddalore-607 002. [Pan: Ammpr 0026 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.Philip George, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

unaccounted purchases & unaccounted sales and also offered gross profit on unaccounted sales as income for the AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18 and filed revised return and also paid taxes. The AO, once again, made addition towards unaccounted purchases on the ground that source was not explained

Anugraha Fashion Mill Private Limited, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal in I

ITA 883/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.883 & 865/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. Anugraha Fashion Mill Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 15, Suriyan Nagar, Income Tax, Abt Rod New Extn., Karuvampalayam, Centralized Processing Centre, Tirupur 641 604. Bangalore 650 500. [Pan:Aahca3311Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Dated 31.08.2020 & 28.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A. No. 883/Chny/2020 2. The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] Dated 31.08.2020 Has Not Been Digitally Signed & Thereby There Was A Mistake Apparent On Record. The Above

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80I

return of income which was the subject matter of 143(1) and 143(3) assessments. When the Original return of income was scrutinised, the Revised Return of Income was processed u/s 143(1). Why the CPC disallowed the claim is due to the fact that assessee ought not have made ... claim in the Revised Return of Income, when the Form 10CCB was not filed along with Original Return of Income. As per sec 143(1)(ii), there is an incorrect claim in the Revised R/I, apparent on the information in the R/I. Hence CPC's action of disallowing deduction claimed

Anugraha Fashion Mill Private Limited, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal in I

ITA 865/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.883 & 865/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 M/S. Anugraha Fashion Mill Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, 15, Suriyan Nagar, Income Tax, Abt Rod New Extn., Karuvampalayam, Centralized Processing Centre, Tirupur 641 604. Bangalore 650 500. [Pan:Aahca3311Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 3, Coimbatore Dated 31.08.2020 & 28.09.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. I.T.A. No. 883/Chny/2020 2. The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] Dated 31.08.2020 Has Not Been Digitally Signed & Thereby There Was A Mistake Apparent On Record. The Above

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80I

return of income which was the subject matter of 143(1) and 143(3) assessments. When the Original return of income was scrutinised, the Revised Return of Income was processed u/s 143(1). Why the CPC disallowed the claim is due to the fact that assessee ought not have made ... claim in the Revised Return of Income, when the Form 10CCB was not filed along with Original Return of Income. As per sec 143(1)(ii), there is an incorrect claim in the Revised R/I, apparent on the information in the R/I. Hence CPC's action of disallowing deduction claimed

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 292/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

case was selected for complete scrutiny and accordingly notice u/s. 143(2) was served on the assessee. The assessee later filed a revised return declaring a loss of Rs.3,99,88,257. Since the assessee had international transaction, a reference was made to the TPO to determine