← 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

Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur vs. The DCIT, Thrissur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 88/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

Mission Nursing College. Though these independent units came into existence in the year 2003, the assessee decided to merge these two units and filed revised returns for assessment years 2004-05 to 2006-07 on 19th March 2007 by revising the claim of depreciation. By then, the assessment ... already been completed and the revised return filed was infructuous. Therefore, the higher depreciation claim on the basis of infructuous revised return was not in order for that year or subsequent assessment years including the instant year's computation, which was based on such wrong written down value of assets

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no order as

ITA/120/2018HC Calcutta14 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 14, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. R.K. Murarka, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.D. Verma, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The `Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 8Th March, 2017 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In I.T.A. No. 883 & 1018/Kol/2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. The Appeal Was Admitted To Decide The Following Substantial Question Of Law:-

Section 115Section 115JSection 2(24)Section 260A

assessee before the Assessing Officer by filing a revised computation instead of filing a revised 4 return since the time to file the revised return had lapsed, for claiming to treat the incentive subsidies in question as capital receipts instead of revenue receipts as claimed in original return. The Assessing ... clear that its decision was restricted to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return, and did not impinge on the power of the Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

Principal Comm of Income Tax 4, Kolkata vs. M/S Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt Ltd

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no order as

ITA/17/2021HC Calcutta14 Sept 2022

Bench: :

Section 115Section 115JSection 2(24)Section 260A

assessee before the Assessing Officer by filing a revised computation instead of filing a revised 4 return since the time to file the revised return had lapsed, for claiming to treat the incentive subsidies in question as capital receipts instead of revenue receipts as claimed in original return. The Assessing ... clear that its decision was restricted to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return, and did not impinge on the power of the Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

Principal Comm of Income Tax 4, Kolkata vs. M/S Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt Ltd

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no order as

ITA/18/2021HC Calcutta14 Sept 2022

Bench: :

Section 115Section 115JSection 2(24)Section 260A

assessee before the Assessing Officer by filing a revised computation instead of filing a revised 4 return since the time to file the revised return had lapsed, for claiming to treat the incentive subsidies in question as capital receipts instead of revenue receipts as claimed in original return. The Assessing ... clear that its decision was restricted to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return, and did not impinge on the power of the Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

Lic Employees Co-Operative Credit Society, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 99/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Lic Employees Cooperative Vs. Income Tax Officer Credit Society, Hyderabad Ward 5(3) Pan:Aadfl0548F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Amrit Kumar Kota, Ca Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Amrit Kumar Kota, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 80P(2)(a)

during the appeal proceedings by mentioning case does not fall in the exceptions provided. 2. The CIT (A)-I is also not considered the revised return filed in response to section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The CIT(A)-I erred by disallowing Rs.99,95,270/- towards additional ... find the Assessing Officer completed the assessment for the A.Y 2010-11 on 21.3.2016 and while deciding identical issues, the assessee had filed revised return of income by offering the provisions made on additional interest on CTDs and provision towards additional interest on RID of CTDs. The relevant observation

ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 955/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannuand Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80HSection 92C

filed return of income on 24/10/2002 declaring book profit of Rs. 23,65,362, under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 19/08/2003 declaring book profit of Rs. 17,11,423, under section 115JB of the Act. The assessment was completed under section

Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 276/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannuand Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80HSection 92C

filed return of income on 24/10/2002 declaring book profit of Rs. 23,65,362, under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 19/08/2003 declaring book profit of Rs. 17,11,423, under section 115JB of the Act. The assessment was completed under section

Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (Kiit), Patia vs. CIT (Exemp.) Hyderabad, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 48/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Cit (Exemptions), Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Hyderabad 384, 384, Kiit Kiit Campus Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaatk 3103 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13 /9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Ag This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Ainst The Order Of The Ld Cit(E), Hyderabad Hyderabad Passed U/S.263 Of The Act Dated Dated 14.3.2022 In Appeal No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021 Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1040690424(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 10Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

assessee had initially filed return of income showing agricultural income of Rs.15 lakhs. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee filed revised return of income wherein the claim of agricultural income was enhanced to Rs.2.81crores (which was 1872% higher). The A.O. did not apply his mind to this aspect

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S. Ggc Constructions Pvt. Ltd

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA/325/2022HC Delhi13 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 139(5)Section 154

Section 139(5) of the Act. He states that the AO had rightly disallowed the business losses, since the Assessee failed to file a revised return claiming the loss, by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India

M/S Conduent Business Services India LLP, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground No.1 to 3 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3346/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 920

assessment. 3. The learned AO/DRP erred, in law and in facts, in not providing the claim of withholding tax credit as per the revised return of income in case of the Appellant. B. Grounds of appeal relating to transfer pricing matters common to software development services segment and Information Technology ... 31/10/2017, which is as under:- 7. After receipt of the TP order, the AO passed draft assessment order on 11/12/2017. He considered the revised return of income filed by the assessee declaring income of Rs.77,73,37,230/- and making adjustments as per the TPO order of Rs.98

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4 vs. M/S. Ggc Constructions Pvt. Ltd

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

ITA - 325 / 2022HC Delhi13 Sept 2022
Section 139(5)Section 154

Section 139(5) of the Act. He states that the AO had rightly disallowed the business losses, since the Assessee failed to file a revised return claiming the loss, by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India

Shri Shaminder Singh, Muktsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- II ( 2 ), Muktsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 427/Asr/2019 is allowed

ITA 427/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80D

Accordingly, Rs.2,40,000/- was calculated I.T.A. No. 427/Asr/2019 3 as an escaped income and added to the assessee. The assessee filed a revised return against the rectification of the error, but the revised return filed after issuance of notice u/s 147/148. In the ground of the assessee

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. M/S Orient Paper and Industries Ltd

ITAT/164/2022HC Calcutta12 Sept 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 12, 2022. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. …For Respondent Ga/1/2022 The Court :- Heard Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 202 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Petition & We Find That Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Being Able To Prefer The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned.

Section 260

allowing fresh claim of deduction to the assessee despite the fact that the assessee had failed to claim the said deduction by filing revised return? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Tribunal was justified in law in not appreciating the principles laid ... where is has held that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to entertain any fresh claim of deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return? Heard Ms. Smita Das De, learned standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, learned Advocate for the respondent. The short question which falls

DCIT Cor 25(3), Mumbai vs. Parmar Build Tech, Mumbai

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

ITA 1100/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh JainFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Rai, DR
Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 44A

have stated that the firm has already filed the return for assessment year 2008 – 09, Under these circumstances the firm should filed revised return for assessment year 2008 – 09 showing additional income of ₹ 6,568,200/– for assessment year 2008 – 09. Ans:- the firm has not recorded the cash component ... books of accounts maintained by the firm has hit is related to payments over and above the agreement value. Therefore, the firm will file revised return for assessment year 2008 – 09 and include ₹ 6,568,200/– as additional income. The firm will file its revised return at the earliest

ACIT Cir 25(3), Mumbai vs. Parmar Built Tech, Mumbai

In the result the solitary ground of the appeal of the learned AO deserves to be dismissed

ITA 4122/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Mr. Naresh JainFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Rai, DR
Section 143Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 44A

have stated that the firm has already filed the return for assessment year 2008 – 09, Under these circumstances the firm should filed revised return for assessment year 2008 – 09 showing additional income of ₹ 6,568,200/– for assessment year 2008 – 09. Ans:- the firm has not recorded the cash component ... books of accounts maintained by the firm has hit is related to payments over and above the agreement value. Therefore, the firm will file revised return for assessment year 2008 – 09 and include ₹ 6,568,200/– as additional income. The firm will file its revised return at the earliest

Mankind Pharma Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7227/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasadmankind Pharma Ltd. Vs. Dcit 84, Okhla Industrial Circle – 1 Estate, Meerut Phase – 3, New Delhi-110020 Pan No. Aaacm 9401 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajkumar, C.A. Revenue By Shri Jitender Chand, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Meerut Under Section 144C(13) Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act Pursuant To The Direction Of Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) – 2, New Delhi Order Dated 23.08.2018 Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 37(1)

Assessee originally filed its return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 30.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.4,19,43,77,124/-. Assessee thereafter revised return of income on 19.05.2015 declaring total income of Rs.4,18,92,68,457/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed

ACIT, Central Circle-3, New Delhi vs. Insecticides (India) Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed and that of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4873/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh.Ved Jain, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Sapna Bhatia, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80I

Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs.8,84,45,531/- and paid taxes on the book profit of Rs.31,55,80,349/-. Under the revised return, the Assessee had also reduced the total income by an amount of Rs.14,84,20,415/- by showing the same as ‘capital receipts’, which ... earlier shown as ‘revenue receipts’ in the original return of income. The Assessee also reduced the book profit at the same amount in its revised return and paid the taxes accordingly. Therefore considering the said facts during the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that

M/S. Insecticides (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed and that of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3297/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh.Ved Jain, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Sapna Bhatia, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80I

Chapter VIA to the tune of Rs.8,84,45,531/- and paid taxes on the book profit of Rs.31,55,80,349/-. Under the revised return, the Assessee had also reduced the total income by an amount of Rs.14,84,20,415/- by showing the same as ‘capital receipts’, which ... earlier shown as ‘revenue receipts’ in the original return of income. The Assessee also reduced the book profit at the same amount in its revised return and paid the taxes accordingly. Therefore considering the said facts during the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Assessing Officer that

Devi Sea Foods Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.75/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Devi Sea Foods Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Visakhapatnam. Income Tax, Pan: Aabcd 0248 B Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Sri D. Anand, Advocate ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Respondent By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 154Section 50Section 92BSection 92C

various international transactions with its Associated Enterprises (AE) and bench marked its international transactions under Transaction Net Margin Method (TNMM). The assessee filed its revised return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 21.11.2018 admitting a total income of Rs 132,15,54,810/-. The case was referred

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhaptnam vs. Dredging Corporation of India Limited, Visakhaptnam

In the result, appeal and cross objections of the assessee as well as the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 54/VIZ/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.211/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/S Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd. Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Dredge House, Hb Colony, Main Road Income Tax Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam Circle-3(1) [Pan : Aaacd6021B] Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.54/Viz/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Dy.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Dredging Corporation Of Income Tax India Ltd. Circle-3(1) Dredge House, Hb Colony, Visakhapatnam Main Road, Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] Cross Objection No.48/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No.54/Viz/2021) M/S Dredging Corporation Of India Ltd. Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Dredge House, Hb Colony, Main Road Income Tax Seethammadhara Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaacd6021B] निर्धारितऩ की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar िधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, Cit(Dr) सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing 18.07.2022 : घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 115VSection 143(2)Section 143(3)

total income of Rs.8,21,67,900/- and claiming a refund of Rs.14,80,79,080/-. Subsequently, the assessee company filed it’s revised return of income on 07.05.2016, admitting total income of Rs.8,59,91,810/- and claiming a refund of Rs.14,61,78,510/-. The case was selected