← 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

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 324/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

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 323/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

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

M/S Nandi Economic Corridor Enterprises Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 131/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Nandi Economic Corridor The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Enterprises Ltd., Circle – 5(1)(1), No.1, Midford House, Vs. Bengaluru. Midford Garden, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aabcn 2061 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Siva Prasad Reddy, Itp Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

infrastructure corridor in Karnataka. For the Assessment Year 2016-17, return of income was filed on 17.10.2016 declaring loss of Rs.54,90,07,135/-. Revised return was filed on 18.02.2017 in order to claim TDS credit of Rs.81,72,198/- as against the TDS credit of Rs.61,92,198/- claimed

Krushi Vibhag Karmchari Vrund Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Wardha vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/NAG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Krushi Vibhag Karmchari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Vrund Sahakari Pat Sanstha Wardha Maryadit Bajaj Building, Krushna Nagar, Wardha, Maharashtra – 442001 Pan: Aacak6196N Appellant Respondent

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 144Section 148Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

assessee furnished original return taking the benefit of section 10B and did not carry forward the loss. Thereafter, a revised return was filed foregoing the claim of deduction u/s 10B. The AO rejected the withdrawal of exemption under Section 10B by holding that assessee did not furnish the necessary declaration

Castamet Works Private Limited, Kharwa vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

ITA 187/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

original return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs. 6,88,75,950/- on 14.10.2017. The assessee also filed revised return of income on 04.07.2018, same was processed u/s. 143(1) Act, at a total income of Rs. 6,89,95,950/-. The case

ACIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Cineline India Ltd(Earlier Known As Clinemax India Limited), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5942/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Without Filing Revised Return. Hence, In The First Round, The Said Issue Was Restored Back By The Tribunal To The File Of The Assessing Officer. In The Set Aside Proceedings Also, The Assessing Officer Did Not Accept The Contentions Of The Assessee & Accordingly Assessed Entertainment Tax Subsidy As Revenue Receipt Taxable In The Hands Of The Assessee.

ground that the 2 Cineline India Ltd. assessee had made fresh claim before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings without filing revised return. Hence, in the first round, the said issue was restored back by the Tribunal to the file of the Assessing Officer

Raj Real Estate & Finvest Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal CIT-5, Mumbai

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

ITA 538/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 538/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Pcit Mumbai-5, Raj Real Estate & Finvest Pvt. R. No. 515, 5Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 1807, Panchartna Building, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mama Parmanand Marg Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcr3037J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya T Tushar Nagori, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 07.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya TFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nayar, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 22Section 263Section 68

brief are that assessee has filed its return of income on 30.09.2012 declaring total loss of Rs. 17,76,360/-. Thereafter, assessee has filed revised return on 01.01.2013 and the said return was duly processed u/s 143(1). Further the case was reopened u/s 147 by issuance of notice

Warana Industries Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1284/PUN/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1284/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Warana Industries Limited, The Acit, Circle-1, Gat No.795, Tatyasaheb Kore Vs Kolhapur. Nager, Chikurde Road, A/P: Warnanagar, Tal.Panhala, Kolhapur – 416113. Pan: Aaacw 1694 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranikh – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur For The A.Y. 2006-07 Dated 16.07.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.05.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

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

facts of the case are that assessee had filed original return on 11.12.2006 declaring taxable income at Rs.Nil for A.Y.2006-07. Thereafter, assessee filed a revised return of income on 31.01.2013 declaring taxable income of Rs.29,22,518/-. The Assessing Officer(AO) issued notice under section 148 dated 19.02.2013 after recording ... reasons. In the original return, assessee has not disclosed Long Term Capital Gain arising on sale of land which was disclosed in revised return. In the proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147, the AO accepted the Long Term Capital Gain declared by the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted

Aquasub Engineering, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Centralized Processinf Center, Bengaluru

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

ITA 78/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Suresh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 1Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80CSection 80I

claim of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act was denied amounting to Rs.20,70,31,480/- vide intimation dated 14.05.2018. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income vide acknowledgment No.627323361280518 dated 28.05.2018 and claimed deduction u/s.80IA of the Act, as claimed originally and also filed audit report in Form no.10CCB ... return was revised by the assessee within the time limit available u/s.139(5) of the Act. The Department processed the return of income i.e., revised return filed on 28.05.2018, only on 23.05.2019 when the audit report in Form No.10CCB was available with the Department. It means that the Department

Axis Capital Ltd., Mumbai-400025 vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbmai-400020

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

ITA 1160/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2011-12
Section 10Section 14A

Accordingly the financial accounts of the assessee company and M/s Enam Securities P Ltd was merged and in pursuance thereto, the assessee filed revised return of income on the basis of combined income and expenditure account. The same resulted in declaring total income of Rs. 107.97 crores in the revised ... income of Rs. 1.70 crores during the year under consideration and claimed the same as exempt under section 10 of the Act. In the revised return of income, the assessee disallowed a sum of Rs. 10,99,726 under section 14A of the Act, which consisted of interest disallowance

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), -4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1149/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 92C

provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs. 54,30,88,947/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee e-filed a revised return of income on 11/03/2014 declaring the total loss of Rs. 130,64,21,515/- under normal provisions of the Act and book profit

M/S. India Medtronics Pvt.Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(2), Baroda

In the result, similarly the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 480/AHD/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan R. Vora with Sh. Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamath/ Akhtar Hussain Ansari
Section 234BSection 271Section 274Section 92C

amount of EMD written off” “erred in not specifically directing the AO to compute interest 21. under section 234C as per the revised return of income” “Erred in not granting consequential depreciation on non- 22. compete fees as the same is held to be capital in nature ... amount of Rs 5,62,492 written back in AY 2006-07 contending that any claim made other than by way of filing revised return cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble DRP upheld the decision of the AO. 35 ITA No.480/Ahd/2011 & ITA No.3361/Ahd/2010 – India Medtronic Private limited

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Motisons Jewellers Ltdl, Jaipur

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh

M/S. Sharada Paper Company, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 11 (4), Pune

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

ITA 1547/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1547/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S.Sharada Paper Company, The Income Tax Officer, 436/8, Narayan Peth, Vs Ward-11(4), Pune. Maharashtra – 411030. Pan: Aaffs 1470 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Dated 18.07.2019 Arising Out Of Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.03.2013. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Withdrawal Of Claim For The Carry Forward Of Loss For A.Y. 2003-04, A.Y. 2004-05, A.Y.2005-06 & A.Y.2006- 07 Without Verifying The Facts. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Rectification Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 154 & Thereby Withdrawing Loss Allowed In The Assessment Made Under Section 143(3) Of Income Taxact,1961 Without Appreciating The Fact That This Is Not Mistake Apparent From Records & Hence Cannot Be Rectified Under 154 Of The Act.

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 44A

original return declaring losses as stated above With regard to A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee filed its original return showing Nil income whereas the revised return filed on 30.10.2006 showed loss of Rs.45,96,639/-. From the date of filing of the returns as mentioned above, it is seen that ... Ward-11(4), Pune[A] Ground Number 4 : 5. In the Ground No.4 the assessee has claimed that the Loss claimed in the revised return for AY 2005-06 which was filed on 31/10/2006 shall be allowed as original return was filed showing positive return. 5.2 We do not find

Makrand Ratubhai Masrani, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3) (1), Mumbai

ITA 654/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

doctor by profession who has filed return of income for the year under consideration at the total income of Rs.11,02,708/-, again filed revised return on 06.03.2010 declaring total income at Rs.3,00,791/-. After recording reasons notice was issued and served upon the assessee under section

ACIT Cent. Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Aym Syntex Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2550/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

pursuance of notice under sub-section (1) of section section (1) of section 142, to file a revised 142, to file a revised return, if the assessee discovers any omission return, if the assessee discovers any omission or wrong statement therein. The revised return is to be filed ... wrong statement therein. The revised return is to be filed at any or wrong statement therein. The revised return is to be filed at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant time before the expiry of one year from

ACIT- CC -3, Mumbai vs. Aym Syntex Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2549/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

pursuance of notice under sub-section (1) of section section (1) of section 142, to file a revised 142, to file a revised return, if the assessee discovers any omission return, if the assessee discovers any omission or wrong statement therein. The revised return is to be filed ... wrong statement therein. The revised return is to be filed at any or wrong statement therein. The revised return is to be filed at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant time before the expiry of one year from

Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Known As M/S. Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2342/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

pursuance of notice under sub-section (1) of section section (1) of section 142, to file a revised 142, to file a revised return, if the assessee discovers any omission return, if the assessee discovers any omission or wrong statement therein. The revised return is to be filed ... wrong statement therein. The revised return is to be filed at any or wrong statement therein. The revised return is to be filed at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant time before the expiry of one year from

M/S. Aym Syntex Ltd (Formerly Known As M/S. Welspun Syntex Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Cent Cir-3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2341/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

pursuance of notice under sub-section (1) of section section (1) of section 142, to file a revised 142, to file a revised return, if the assessee discovers any omission return, if the assessee discovers any omission or wrong statement therein. The revised return is to be filed ... wrong statement therein. The revised return is to be filed at any or wrong statement therein. The revised return is to be filed at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant time before the expiry of one year from

Aym Syntex Ltd.(Formerly Known As M/S. Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT- CC- 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 2340/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

pursuance of notice under sub-section (1) of section section (1) of section 142, to file a revised 142, to file a revised return, if the assessee discovers any omission return, if the assessee discovers any omission or wrong statement therein. The revised return is to be filed ... wrong statement therein. The revised return is to be filed at any or wrong statement therein. The revised return is to be filed at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant time before the expiry of one year from