“revised return”

Dy.CIT Central Cir-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 1997-98 Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Kumar Rasiklal Income Tax, Mehta, Central Circle – 2(1), 602-603, Prasad Old Cgo Building, 804, Vs. Chambers, 8Th Floor, Opera House, Cit 2(1)(2), Mumbai – 400 004 M.K. Road, Pan: Aaopm3805D Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Rs.47,60,410/-. Thereafter, assessment was reopened by initiating the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act and in response thereto the assessee filed revised return at the total income of Rs.1,00,60,410/-. 4. On the basis of information received from French Government under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement

Tom Thomas, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (CPC), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed” (Emphasis Supplied)

section 90(2) of the Act read with Article 25 of the India-Singapore Tax Treaty ('the Tax Treaty'). Along with the revised return the Appellant also filed Form 67 support his claim for FTC of INR. 430,399/-. 5. The revised return filed by the Appellant was processed ... Credit cannot be allowed. 5.4 However, it appears that the appellant has filed such claim for foreign tax credit as well as the revised return due to misconception. While giving effect to this order, the Assessing Officer should recompute the correct income on the basis of original return as well

Munish Babaji Sawant, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result of the Assessee is allowed

claim 3 I.T.A. No. 744/Mum/2022 MUNISH BABAJI SAWANT can be made before the Assessing Officer except through a revised return and not through mere filling of revised computation as in this case. ii) There is failure on the part of the Assessee to deposit the capital gains in the capital ... Goetze (India) Ltd. applies only to the power of the assessing officer to admit claim of the assessee otherwise than by way of revised return and not to power of appellate authorities to admit the claim and he referred to the judgment of Pruthvi Brokers and shareholders

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Tax) 4(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalrenaissance Services Bv, C/O Marriott Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. 303A, 304, Fulcrum, B-Wing, Hiranandani Business Park, Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400099 Pan: Aaecr4995E ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit (International Taxation)-4(1)(1), 17Th Floor, Room No. 1712, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 ..... Respondent

claim of the assessee could be made only by way of a valid return. In the instant case, the assessee could not file a revised return within the time prescribed under the Act. It is a fact that assessee had offered the income while filing its return

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the results, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Everest Industries Ltd. 2303, Fairfield-A, Majhiwada Bridge, Thane (West)-400601 Pan: Aaace7550N ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Circle-1 Ashar I.T. Park, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent

normal provisions of the act and declared income of Rs 19,42,92,651/- under the provisions of sec 115JB. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return declaring total income of Rs 12,22,73,180/- under the normal provisions of the act and income u/s 155JB ... revised return the assessee claimed deduction on account of sales tx incentive availed under “new package scheme of incentives 1993” credited to P&L Account being incentive in the nature of capital subsidy and set off unabsorbed depreciation brought forward from earlier years. 4. Case was selected for scrutiny