← 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

Harakh Samir Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Ward 19 (2), Mumbai

ITA 6408/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

supra), by a notice dated 6/2/2013, the Revenue sought to reopen the assessment in the year 2007-08. The Assessee filed a revised return of income and sought for reasons recorded in support of the notice dated 6.2.2013. The reasons were furnished only on 19.3.2015. The Assessee lodged objections

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur), Mumbai

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

ITA 3033/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

Bank of India ITA No. 3033/2873/Mum/2019 9. The Ld. A.O. rejected the contention of the assessee. The Ld. A.O. noted that assessee in the revised return of income filed has suo moto made disallowance of 0.5% of average investment generating exempt income and thus assessee itself has accepted the provisions

State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), Mumbai vs. ACIT -Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2873/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

Bank of India ITA No. 3033/2873/Mum/2019 9. The Ld. A.O. rejected the contention of the assessee. The Ld. A.O. noted that assessee in the revised return of income filed has suo moto made disallowance of 0.5% of average investment generating exempt income and thus assessee itself has accepted the provisions

Sanjiv Gopal, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 743/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2020-21 Shri. Sanjiv Gopal, Vs. Adit, No.181, Ground Floor Mandara, Cpc, 2B Cross, 4Th Main, Domlur 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 071. Pan : Agvpg 2262 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Gudimella V. P. Pavan Kumar, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. V. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella V. P. Pavan Kumar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 90

claimed FTC of Rs. 4,73,779/- u/s. 90 of the Act read with Article 24 of India Australia tax treaty (“DTAA”) in a revised return of income filed on 31.8.2018. The Assessee had not filed the Form 67 before filing the return of income. On realising the same ... Page 8 of 13 Assessee filed Form 67 in support of claim of foreign tax credit on 18.04.2020. The revised return of income was processed by Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) electronically and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.05.2020 was passed disallowing the claim

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 584/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Mrs. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(C)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 154Section 234B

erred in holding that the Appellant is not entitled to make a fresh claim of deduction otherwise than by way of filing a revised return of income. On proper appreciation of facts and law applicable. fresh claim of deduction could be considered by the Appellate authorities during appellate proceedings ... application vide letter dated 25/01/2019 submitting as under: “The University e filed NIL return of income on 17.10.2016 ACK No.51196799017106) (Anne-A) followed by revised return of income on 31.03.2017 (Ack No.747507270310317) (Ann-B) claiming exemption u/s 11 along with Audit report in Form 10B and Form No.10 for accumulation

Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 563/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Mrs. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DR
Section 10Section 10(23)(C)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 154Section 234B

erred in holding that the Appellant is not entitled to make a fresh claim of deduction otherwise than by way of filing a revised return of income. On proper appreciation of facts and law applicable. fresh claim of deduction could be considered by the Appellate authorities during appellate proceedings ... application vide letter dated 25/01/2019 submitting as under: “The University e filed NIL return of income on 17.10.2016 ACK No.51196799017106) (Anne-A) followed by revised return of income on 31.03.2017 (Ack No.747507270310317) (Ann-B) claiming exemption u/s 11 along with Audit report in Form 10B and Form No.10 for accumulation

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Officer Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2732/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fmc India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Embassy Star 1St Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacf4579N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. S. Praveena, Cit Drp-2 Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 23/07/2018 Passes By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2
Section 250Section 37(1)

partly allowed. 10. Ground No.3 is raised by the assessee as the Ld.AO did not consider the claim disallowance if interest as per the revised return. 10.1 It is submitted that, the assessee had filed revised return wherein the loss declared was Rs.14,44,51,927/- vis-a-vis Rs.14 ... 2732/Bang/2018 11.1 We note that Ld.CIT(A) did not consider the plea of the assessee as the Ld.AO had not considered the revised return. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2006) 157 taxman 1, has observed as under: “4. The decision

M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2611/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fmc India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Embassy Star 1St Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacf4579N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. S. Praveena, Cit Drp-2 Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 23/07/2018 Passes By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2
Section 250Section 37(1)

partly allowed. 10. Ground No.3 is raised by the assessee as the Ld.AO did not consider the claim disallowance if interest as per the revised return. 10.1 It is submitted that, the assessee had filed revised return wherein the loss declared was Rs.14,44,51,927/- vis-a-vis Rs.14 ... 2732/Bang/2018 11.1 We note that Ld.CIT(A) did not consider the plea of the assessee as the Ld.AO had not considered the revised return. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2006) 157 taxman 1, has observed as under: “4. The decision

Smt. Chandrikaben Thakarshibhai Langhnoja, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward- 2 (2) (3), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 135/RJT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 154

mistakenly returned income of Rs. 54,97,370/-. 3.Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed a revised return on 06.01.2015 by e-filing correcting the typographical error and offering the total income of Rs. 4,97,370/-. The above return was declared “Invalid” with E-filing Acknowledged Number 459041810060115. Therefore ... Assessing Officer vide his rectification order dated 16.10.2018 took a note of all the above submissions, however held that the Revised Return of Income is required to be filed within the time limit prescribed under the Act. I.T.A No. 135/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 3 Smt. Chandrikaben Thakarshibhai Langhnoja

Shrabani Ghosh, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-23(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 140/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

assessee in her original return. Therefore, notice u/s 148 was issued for reopening the assessment. In response to the notices, the assessee filed here revised return of income on 27.12.2013 declaring income from department of Education and Training of Rs. 1,41,963/- and also income from M/s. M.N. Dastur

Sa Thooyamani, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 169/CHNY/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.165-169/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08 V. Mr.S.A.Thooyamani, The Dy. Commissioner – 64, Balasundaram Road, Of Income Tax, Near Rto Office, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aagpt 1806 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.A.Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

maintenance of accounts as stipulated, obligation to get the accounts audited, duty to file returns of income within the due date [including belated and revised returns], need to pay advance tax and claiming credit for TDS/TCS in the manner provided in the Act. The Act at the same time

Sa Thooyamani, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 168/CHNY/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.165-169/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08 V. Mr.S.A.Thooyamani, The Dy. Commissioner – 64, Balasundaram Road, Of Income Tax, Near Rto Office, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aagpt 1806 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.A.Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

maintenance of accounts as stipulated, obligation to get the accounts audited, duty to file returns of income within the due date [including belated and revised returns], need to pay advance tax and claiming credit for TDS/TCS in the manner provided in the Act. The Act at the same time

Sa Thooyamani, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 167/CHNY/2021[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.165-169/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08 V. Mr.S.A.Thooyamani, The Dy. Commissioner – 64, Balasundaram Road, Of Income Tax, Near Rto Office, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aagpt 1806 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.A.Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

maintenance of accounts as stipulated, obligation to get the accounts audited, duty to file returns of income within the due date [including belated and revised returns], need to pay advance tax and claiming credit for TDS/TCS in the manner provided in the Act. The Act at the same time

Sa Thooyamani, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 166/CHNY/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.165-169/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08 V. Mr.S.A.Thooyamani, The Dy. Commissioner – 64, Balasundaram Road, Of Income Tax, Near Rto Office, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aagpt 1806 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.A.Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

maintenance of accounts as stipulated, obligation to get the accounts audited, duty to file returns of income within the due date [including belated and revised returns], need to pay advance tax and claiming credit for TDS/TCS in the manner provided in the Act. The Act at the same time

Sa Thooyamani, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, CC-1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 165/CHNY/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.165-169/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2003-04 To 2007-08 V. Mr.S.A.Thooyamani, The Dy. Commissioner – 64, Balasundaram Road, Of Income Tax, Near Rto Office, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aagpt 1806 M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.A.Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

maintenance of accounts as stipulated, obligation to get the accounts audited, duty to file returns of income within the due date [including belated and revised returns], need to pay advance tax and claiming credit for TDS/TCS in the manner provided in the Act. The Act at the same time

ACIT, Ncc - 11 (1), Chennai vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Chennai

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

ITA 302/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.302/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Income Tax, No. 196, Govindappa Naicken Street, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), George Town, Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aavps4928E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advdocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 21.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Erroneously Held That The Assessee Had Not Claimed Exemption U/S.10(37) [P.8.2] Though The Assessee, Vide His Letter Dated 26-12-2018 Stated "The Compensation Of Rs.7,62,40,126/- Received Was Claimed Exempt U/S.10(37), However, It Was Erroneously Omitted To Be Mentioned In The Return Of Income Filed."

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advdocate
Section 10(37)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 34Section 45Section 57

laws also hold that the CIT has the power to allow fresh claim made by the assessee for the first time even if no revised return is filed as also the duty of CIT to allow deduction sou motu even if not claimed by the 11 I.T.A. No. 302/Chny/20 assessee

Mark Vandertuig Jayanthi, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1502/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 47A(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 54E

claimed deduction u/s.54EC of Rs.50 lakhs. The assessee later invested Rs.1.26 crores in SBI capital gain account scheme on 12.07.2014 and filed her revised return of income on 01.05.2014 admitting long term capital gain of Rs.11,46,590/-. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO noticed from

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

Office Expenditure of Rs 23,28,71,503/- in entirety without taking recourse to section 44C cannot be accepted since appellant has not filed revised return for such claim. b) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that 5 ITA NO. 803 & 850/MUM/2009 (A.Y. 1999-2000) Standard Chartered Bank  The decision ... financial year ended 31-12-1954 relevant to assessment year 1955-56 without claiming any deduction on account of such liability. However, subsequently revised return was filed on 9-11-1959 claiming the aforesaid deduction even though the said demand was objected to by the assessee before the higher authority

ACIT(Exemp), Circle, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 275/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

assessee. After adjustment of disallowable expenditure the assessee has shown net loss of Rs. 4,92,41,31,841/- in the revised Return of Income filed on 31.03.2017. In the computation of income the assessee has claimed Capital Expenditure of Rs. 15,32,76,466/- under the head application

ACIT(Exemp), Circle, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 271/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Sept 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

assessee. After adjustment of disallowable expenditure the assessee has shown net loss of Rs. 4,92,41,31,841/- in the revised Return of Income filed on 31.03.2017. In the computation of income the assessee has claimed Capital Expenditure of Rs. 15,32,76,466/- under the head application