← 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

Sri Sowdeswari Mahajana Charitable Trust, Salem vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 704/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.704/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S.Sri Sowdeswari Mahajana V. The Asst. Director Of- Charitable Trust, Income Tax, No.1, Kondalampatti Bye Pass Road, Centralized Processing Kondalampatti, Salem. Centre, Bengaluru. [Pan: Aaets 0190 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.K.N.Dhandapani, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 143(1)(a)

Application. 2.4 CIT(A) failed to use his Appellate powers to decide the Appeal and erred in 4.directing the Appellant to file a revised return of income. 2.5 CIT(A) failed to follow the Citizens's Charter which specifies, providing timely decisions, collecting correct amount of tax and reducing cost ... technicalities, while ignoring that that the eventual destination of every litigation is justice. 2.7 CIT(A) having directed the Appellant to file a revised return of income ought to have directed the AO to enable the portal for submission of such revised return or accept manual ROI. 3. The brief

Merck Specialities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2056/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 4Section 5Section 92CSection 92C(1)

assessment proceedings; (ii) stating that the claim for depreciation on Goodwill is not allowable since the same ought to have been made vide the Revised Return of Income. 5. Interest U/s.234A of the Act: In the facts and circumstances of the case ... year under consideration, assessee filed its return of income on 29/11/2011 declaring total income of Rs. 36,33,31,103. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 28/03/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 34,84,38,680. During the year, assessee has made ‘payment of technical consultancy fees

Aradhya Ghosh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-69(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1788/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

total income of Rs.42,63,710/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Later, the assessee filed his revised Return of Income for the impugned A.Y. 2017-18 on 12.09.2017. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notice under section

Springer Nature Customer Services Centre Gmbh, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Internationalo Taxation, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2534/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Springer Nature Customer Services Vs Jcit Centre Gmbh (Earlier Known As (International Taxation), Springer Customer Centre Gmbh), Circle-3(1)(2), 7Th Floor, Vijaya Building, New Delhi. 17-Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aascs1092B Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Himanshu Sinha, Bhuwan Dhooper & Vibhu Gupta, Advocates Respondent By Ms. Rashmita Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.10.2022

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271Section 9(1)(vi)

deduction. It is not the case of the appellant that the appellant made any specific claim (by way of filing return of income or revised return of income) for allowing deduction against this receipt and AO denied such claim. 7.14 Therefore, although this ground (No. 3) of the appeal

Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 245D(4)Section 271A

Field Farms & Resorts (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [(2016) 70 taxmann.com 176 (Jaipur - Trib.)(TM)] held that where pursuant to survey proceedings, assessee company filed revised return declaring additional income in form of unexplained investment in purchase of agricultural land, penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) in respect

The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-1(2), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. M/S Eagle Motors Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 78/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT D.RFor Respondent: None
Section 14ASection 40Section 43B

facts and in law in deleting the disallowances made u/s. 43B out of VAT and Entry Tax on the ground that in the revised return the assesse has added back the same. However, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, the items covered u/s. 43B totaled ... income as per the original return was Rs. 32,05,900/- and therefore, the revised return should have been Rs.4,00,59,797/-, against which the revised return is only Rs. 3,12,26,463/- and therefore there is no explanation of the remaining

Toshiba Technical Services International Corporation, Mumbai vs. The ADIT., (Intl.Taxn.)-2, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1516/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year :2015-16 Toshiba Technical Services Vs. Acit, International International Corporation Taxation-2 (India Project Office) Ahmedabad. B-/12 Vijay Wadi Niwas Chs Ltd. Lokmanya Tilak Road Mulund East, Mumbai Pan : Aabct 9577 D

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, SR-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)

assessee on 30.11.2015 claiming TDS of Rs.4,04,56,666/- (placed before in paper book page no.82 and 83), and then to revised return filed by the assessee for the impugned year on 31.3.2017 and claiming TDS at Rs.5,63,89,321/-. He pointed out therefrom that the assessee ... claimed the impugned TDS in the revised return filed for the year. He thereafter drew our attention to the TDS certificate furnished by the party, which had deducted the impugned TDS i.e. Toshiba JSW Power Systems P.Ltd. (placed before in PB page nos.86 to 97) along with copy of invoices

Dharmista Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 34(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldr. Dharmista Mehta 22/5, Walchand Terraces, Opp. A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400043. Pan: Aafpm5272R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-34(1) (3), Income Tax Office Building, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Satish Mody Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 31.01.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Satish ModyFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

construction, without resorting to the Capital Gains Account Scheme, can be made till the date of belated return under section 139(4) or revised return under section 139(5) as the wordings used in section 54(2) is "section 139", and not section 139(1), which covers all sub- sections

Phoenix International Freight Services P. Ltd( Now Known As As C.H. Robinson International (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3206/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shripavankumargadale,Judicialmember & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Phoenix Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of International Freight Income Tax, Range-2(1) Services Pvt. Ltd. (Now Mumbai-400050 Known As C.H. Robinson International (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Excom House 7, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400072 Pan No.Aabce0443R Appellant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

escaped the Assesseement and issued notice under Section 148 of the Act. In reply, the assessee has filed a letter to treat the revised return of income filed earlier as due compliance. Subsequently, the assessee was also provided reasons for reopening assessment and further, the AO has issued notice under ... concerns of the said hawala entry provider, Mr. Sandeep Satani. He, therefore, offered such bogus commission of Rs.30,75,000/- for disallowance in its revised return of income. Whereas the appellant could not file all details relating to the remaining payments of brokerage and commission and, therefore, the claim relating

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2285/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I-2‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2273/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I-2‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT Cent. Cir -4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Inorbit Malls (India ) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2220/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2220/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Central Cir-4(2) M/S. Inorbit Malls P.Ltd Room No.1918, 19Th Floor, बिधम/ Plot No.C-30,Bnlock-G, Air India Bldg, Nariman Opp Sidbi Bank, Bkc, Point Mumbai 400021 Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai 400050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaack9106G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. Madhur Agarwal, Adv. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr. Ganesh Bare, Cit Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 14.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Ganesh Bare, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 153A

building property was included the closing stock in the balance sheet drawn for the business. The Assessee has filed the revised returned submitting that a part of its property was given on rent and the income derived on that basis should be computed under the head income from house property ... property, one of the building properties was included in the closing stock in the balance-sheet drawn for the business. The assessee filed a revised return submitting that a part of its property was given on rent and the income derived on that basis should be computed under the head

Nayara Energy Limited (on Behalf of Merged Entity Vadinar Oil Terminal Limited), Mumbai vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 777/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.777/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Nayara Energy Ltd (On Acit, Central Circle-2(1) बिधम/ Behalf Of Merged Entity Room No. 804, Pratishtha Vs. Vadinar Oil Terminal Ltd) Bhavan, Old Cgo 5Th Floor, Jet Airways Annexe, M. K. Road, Godrej Bkc, G- Block, Plot Mumbai-400020. C-68, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2626D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2022 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By Assessee Are As Under: - “Disallowance Of Interest Under Section 36(1) (Iii) Of The Income-Tax Act The Act - Rs.149.80 Crores 1. The Learned Assessing Officer (Ao) & Learned Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing Interest Of Rs.149.80 Crores Pertaining To Loans Of Rs.1253.53 Crores Granted To Related Parties Contending Them To Be Interest Free Without Appreciating The Fact, That Out Of The Total Amount, Only Security Deposits Of Rs.96.53 Crores Are Interest Free Refundable

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 37

selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) dated 20.07.2017 was issued and served on the assessee company. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return of income declaring total loss of Rs.9.63,42,037/- under normal provisions and ITA Ns. 777/Mum/2022 A.Ys. 2016-17 Nayara Energy Ltd. Rs.19 ... u/s.115JB of the Act. The assessee has stated that the revised return of income was filed as certain details/deductions in computation of income were missed out in the original return of income. Notices u/s 142(1) were issued by the AO to the assessee on 11.10.2018 calling for various details

Sotc Travel Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3656/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 14Section 14ASection 250Section 254(1)Section 40

invested in tax free bonds on which it has claimed interest income of Rs. 10,20,966/- as exempt from tax. In the revised return of income, the assessee suo-moto made disallowance of Rs. 4,23,716/- under section 14A of the Act. The AO vide assessment order dated

Sachchade Food Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 89/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 89/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Sachchade Food Private Limited, P.C.I.T., 407/3, New Ahmedabad Industrial Vs. Ahmedabad-3, Estate, Ahmedabad. Village: Moraiya Tal. Sanand, Ahmedabad-382213. Pan: Aatcs9292G

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued with specific questions as to give the details of (a) Difference between revised return and original return along with documentary evidence (b) Large current liability in comparison to total asset in balance sheet. 3. In response ... called for. The officer has verified all the details and documents as mentioned in his assessment order. He has passed assessment order accepting the revised return filed by the assesse company after due verification of the details and documents submitted during the course of hearing. 4. Later on the company

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, West Bengal vs. DCIT Central Cir-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 188/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 188/मुं/2021 (िन.व. 2007-08) Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Industry House, 18Th Floor, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017 Pan: Aaace-6607-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cen.Circle-1(4), 9Th Flor, Old Cgo Building, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar & Ms.Sukanya Jayaram "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Abhijit Chaudhari सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/09/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar and Ms.Sukanya JayaramFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Chaudhari
Section 143(3)Section 244A(1)

Representative submitted that claim was first made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Fresh claim was not made by assessee by way of revised return of income. The claim of the assessee, which resulted in refund was accepted by the Tribunal after protracted litigation. Hence, assessee’s claim

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 328/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

return of income on 18.10.2008. There was a notice u/s 148 of the Act issued to the assessee consequent to which assessee has filed revised return on 18.10.2010 and this assessment has been completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 327/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

return of income on 18.10.2008. There was a notice u/s 148 of the Act issued to the assessee consequent to which assessee has filed revised return on 18.10.2010 and this assessment has been completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

return of income on 18.10.2008. There was a notice u/s 148 of the Act issued to the assessee consequent to which assessee has filed revised return on 18.10.2010 and this assessment has been completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

return of income on 18.10.2008. There was a notice u/s 148 of the Act issued to the assessee consequent to which assessee has filed revised return on 18.10.2010 and this assessment has been completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. Consequent to search action, the notice