← 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

Sankalp Recreation Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1666/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1666/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Sankalp Recreation Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., C/O Ketan H. Shah,Advocate Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), 512, Times Square-I, Ahmedabad. Opp. Ram Baug Bunglow, Thaltej Shilaj Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah, with Shri Aman Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 154

dated 31/10/1981. Thus, the AO finally assessed the income at Rs. 1,50,09,800.00 only i.e. the income declared in the revised return of income. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed a rectification application wherein it was contended that the Board Circular issued

DCIT, Chennai vs. Srinivasa Fashions Pvt Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2004/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, CA
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)Section 47Section 47xSection 72A(6)

used. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee filed its return of income for assessment year 2008-09 on 30.09.2008 and subsequently filed revised return on 29.09.2009 admitting ‘nil’ income after claiming deduction of Rs.2,95,01,806/- u/s.10AA of the Act for its SEZ unit and loss of Rs.49

Indauto Filters, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 719/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K G Acharya, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 32

income is an inadvertent clerical error on the part of the assessee. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee did not file any revised return as claimed by the CIT(A), but only filed a rectification for the intimation u/s. 143(1). Our attention was drawn ... dispute that in the instant case, return under section 139(1) was filed belatedly. Hence, the assessee is not entitled to file a revised return under section 139(5) of the Act going by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumar Jagdish

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 234/CTK/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

days for the assessment year 1979-80 and for 54 days for the assessment year 1980-81. The assessee admitted the suppression and filed revised returns for the two years which were accepted. Penalty was levied but it was cancelled by the Tribunal. On a reference, it was held ... view of the search made and the seizure effected gross omissions of collections were found out and subsequently, the assessee itself had filed revised returns accepting the omissions. Accordingly it was held by Honourable Madras High Court that the cancellation of penalty was not valid. In the case of Shuorajsingh

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/CTK/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

days for the assessment year 1979-80 and for 54 days for the assessment year 1980-81. The assessee admitted the suppression and filed revised returns for the two years which were accepted. Penalty was levied but it was cancelled by the Tribunal. On a reference, it was held ... view of the search made and the seizure effected gross omissions of collections were found out and subsequently, the assessee itself had filed revised returns accepting the omissions. Accordingly it was held by Honourable Madras High Court that the cancellation of penalty was not valid. In the case of Shuorajsingh

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/CTK/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

days for the assessment year 1979-80 and for 54 days for the assessment year 1980-81. The assessee admitted the suppression and filed revised returns for the two years which were accepted. Penalty was levied but it was cancelled by the Tribunal. On a reference, it was held ... view of the search made and the seizure effected gross omissions of collections were found out and subsequently, the assessee itself had filed revised returns accepting the omissions. Accordingly it was held by Honourable Madras High Court that the cancellation of penalty was not valid. In the case of Shuorajsingh

S.M.Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/CTK/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

days for the assessment year 1979-80 and for 54 days for the assessment year 1980-81. The assessee admitted the suppression and filed revised returns for the two years which were accepted. Penalty was levied but it was cancelled by the Tribunal. On a reference, it was held ... view of the search made and the seizure effected gross omissions of collections were found out and subsequently, the assessee itself had filed revised returns accepting the omissions. Accordingly it was held by Honourable Madras High Court that the cancellation of penalty was not valid. In the case of Shuorajsingh

S.M.Enterprisera, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/CTK/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

days for the assessment year 1979-80 and for 54 days for the assessment year 1980-81. The assessee admitted the suppression and filed revised returns for the two years which were accepted. Penalty was levied but it was cancelled by the Tribunal. On a reference, it was held ... view of the search made and the seizure effected gross omissions of collections were found out and subsequently, the assessee itself had filed revised returns accepting the omissions. Accordingly it was held by Honourable Madras High Court that the cancellation of penalty was not valid. In the case of Shuorajsingh

S M Enterprisers, Keonjhar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/CTK/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Oct 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita Nos.199, 200, 201 & 202, 233 & 234/Ctk/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2004-2005 To 2009-2010) S.M.Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar At : Balda, Po : Joda, Keonjhar-758034 Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. : Aatfs 6804 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Passed In I.T.Appeal Nos.0105- 0108/15-16, Dated 01.09.2020 & In I.T.Appeal Nos.0109 & 0110/15-16, Dated 22.09.2020 For The Assessment Years 2004-2005 To 2009-2010. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Assessee Had Originally Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Its Income From Extraction Of Iron Ore As A Contractor In The Mines Of Serajuddin & Co. There Was A Search In The Premises Of The Serajuddin & Co. On 28.05.2008. Consequent Survey Had Been Done On The Assessee On 09.07.2008. Admittedly, Books Of Account Of The Assessee Had Not Been Found. There Was A Search On The 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

days for the assessment year 1979-80 and for 54 days for the assessment year 1980-81. The assessee admitted the suppression and filed revised returns for the two years which were accepted. Penalty was levied but it was cancelled by the Tribunal. On a reference, it was held ... view of the search made and the seizure effected gross omissions of collections were found out and subsequently, the assessee itself had filed revised returns accepting the omissions. Accordingly it was held by Honourable Madras High Court that the cancellation of penalty was not valid. In the case of Shuorajsingh

Digant Laxmidas Kapadia, Mumbai vs. The DCIT CPC, Bangalore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 622/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Satish ModiFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Singh
Section 143(1)Section 5(1)Section 6

this account have been made in any of the preceding assessment years. In order to support his contention, he took us through the revised return wherein the Appellant had offered to tax income of INR 12,36,718/- during the relevant assessment year on receipt basis which included interest income ... income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The relevant enclosures in this regard were also made in TDS-2 Schedule forming part of the revised return. In view of the aforesaid, he submitted that the addition of INR 15,48,775/- (INR.30,06,671 – INR.14,57,896/-) is liable

Sri Kambegowda Puttanarasappa, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 456/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Avinash Mallya, Advocate and Sri.Hemant Pai, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessment completed on 28.11.2019 stems from the original return filed on 2 Sri Kambegowda Puttanarasappa. 06.09.2017. In this context, it was contended that the revised return filed on 07.03.2019 effaces and obliterates original return and only revised return is to be taken into account for the purpose of making assessment ... learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that both the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the I.T.Act and the revised return filed u/s 139(5) of the I.T.Act were processed on 26.11.2018 and on 07.03.2019, respectively. Therefore, it was submitted that the case laws relied

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ujjain (Stationed at Indore), Ujjain vs. M/S. Jpj Exim (P) Ltd., Indore

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 960/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: None
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Mittal [2001] 251 ITR 9, that where the assessee filed revised return showing higher income after search and notice for re-opening of assessment to purchases peace and avoid litigation, and department simply rested its conclusion ... Page 9 where the assessee field 7 I.T.A. No. 960/IND/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No ACIT vs. M/s. JPJ Exim P. Ltd. revised return showing higher income after search, to purchases peace and avoid litigation 6. Respectfully following the above Jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Shivnarayan Jamnalal

M/S.R.S.Rangadas vs. The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/406/2005HC Telangana19 Oct 2022

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1880/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2013-14 Gujarat Mineral Development The Dy.Cit Corporation Limited Vs. Circle-2(1)(1) 6, Floor Khanij Bhavan Ahmedabad 132, Ft.Ring Road B/H. Gandhi Labour Institute, Ahmedabad Pan:Aaacg 7987 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alok Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms.Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23/10/2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ground Of Appeal Is As Under :- “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Your Appellant, Most Respectfully Submits That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Confirming The Gujarat Mineral Development Corpn Ltd. Vs. Dcit Ay 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 43B

minerals and generation of power. The return of income was filed on 26.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 878,87,82,502/-. Subsequently, revised return of income was filed by the assessee on 22.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 878,53,47,676/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. Further

Soma Enterprise Limited, Hyderabad vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1145/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2009-10 on 03/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.128,80,55,960/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143 ... record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2010-11 on 29/03/2012 declaring total income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and declared book profit

Soma Enterprise Limited, Hyderabad vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1144/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2016-2017
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2009-10 on 03/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.128,80,55,960/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143 ... record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2010-11 on 29/03/2012 declaring total income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and declared book profit

Soma Enterprise Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1143/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2009-10 on 03/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.128,80,55,960/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143 ... record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2010-11 on 29/03/2012 declaring total income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and declared book profit

Soma Enterprises Limited, Telangana vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1142/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2014-2015
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2009-10 on 03/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.128,80,55,960/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143 ... record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2010-11 on 29/03/2012 declaring total income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and declared book profit

Soma Enterprises Limited, Telagana vs. The PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1141/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2009-10 on 03/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.128,80,55,960/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143 ... record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2010-11 on 29/03/2012 declaring total income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and declared book profit

Soma Enterprises Limited, Telangana vs. The PCIT, (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1140/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2012-2013
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2009-10 on 03/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.128,80,55,960/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143 ... record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2010-11 on 29/03/2012 declaring total income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and declared book profit