“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

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

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

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

Dredging Corporation of India, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 211/VIZ/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

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

M/S Premji Valji & Sons, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 125/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 125/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S Premji Valji & Sons, The Principal Commissioner Of “Kuvarjibhai Tower”, Vs. Income Tax, Palace Road, Rajkot-1, Rajkot. Rajkot. Pan: Aacfp7696K

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269S

herewith. 25 VAT Audit Report or Form 205: VAT Report for the year 2016-16 in Form 205 is enclosed herewith. We have not revised return file after 08.11.2016. 26 Day wise cash book: A.Y. 2017-18 13 Day wise cash book attached herewith 15 Closing Stock and Opening Stock ... herewith. 25 VAT Audit Report or Form 205: VAT Report for the year 2016-16 in Form 205 is enclosed herewith. We have not revised return file after 08.11.2016. 26 Day wise cash book: Day wise cash book attached herewith 15 Closing Stock and Opening Stock:- Please find enclosed copy

Vijay Channabasav Suttatti, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 13, Pune

ITA 825/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 825/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 Vijay Channabasav Suttatti Mulbery Garden, Magarpatta City, Pune. . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan : Acmps4486Q बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Circle-13, Pune. द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By :Shri Kishor Phade Revenue By :Shrim. G. Jasnani सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/09/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Extant Appeal Is Challenged Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals-8), Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 15/08/2018 Passed U/S 250 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Ascended Out Of Regular Assessment Order Dt. 26/03/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, By Asstt. Cit, Circle-13, Pune [For Short “Ao”], For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-13. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadeFor Respondent: ShriM. G. Jasnani

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Vijay Channabasav Suttatti ITA No. 825/PUN/2018AY: 2012-13 2. The solitary dispute contested by the present appeal spins around the validity of revised return filed vis-a-vis claims made thereunder, where the original return of income was filed belatedly u/s 139(4) of the Act. 3. Before travelling ... facts in upholding the action of the learned ACIT, Circle-13, Pune (hereinafter referred to as the learned AO) in not considering the revised return of income filed by the appellant u/s 139(5) of the ITA, 1961 as original return of income was filed beyond time limit prescribed

Carolina Food and Industries Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2625/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 32

that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring total income at ‘NIL’ after setting off brought forward losses. The assessee filed revised return declaring total income at Rs.18,27,79,170/- and this return was selected for scrutiny through CASS and statutory notices were issued and duly ... Explanation 3(b) to section 32(1). The ld. Counsel also submitted that consequent to scheme of amalgamation, the assessee has filed a revised return of income for A.Y. 2015-16, and claimed depreciation of Rs.6,24,73,357/- on opening written down value of block of assets including depreciation

M/S. Raga vs. Diagnostic & Research Centre Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Gowthama, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prithviraj, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 69C

assessee fell sick due to which the mistake of not including the additional income of Rs.53,85,000 occurred. The assessee filed a revised return before the AO including the additional income thereby reducing the loss returned in the original return to that extent. The AO treated the additional income ... reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities with respect to offering additional income of Rs.53,85,000 in the revised return manually submitted before the AO. It was submitted that the assessee has only one source of income i.e., business income from running the diagnostic centre and even

M/S. Reddy Structures (Private) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1305/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

Rs.6.76,56,621/- and had ultimately calculated tax on book profit of Rs. 6,71,42,990/-. Subsequently, the assessee company filed a revised return of income on 06/01/2011 declaring total income of Rs. NIL after claiming deduction u/s 80IB of Rs. 11,04,20,090/- which was restricted ... gross total income of Rs. 9,59,83,298/-. In the revised return, the assessee had calculated tax on Book Profit of Rs. 9,52,80,560/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment proceedings were completed by order of assessment passed

Crayons Advertising (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-6(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7491/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 10(38)Section 234BSection 28Section 36Section 56(2)(vii)

Apex Court has expounded that the said decision would not impinge upon the powers of ITAT in dealing with the claim otherwise than by revised return. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to consider this issue and decide as per law. Apropos Ground No.2 7. The assessee has made share

DCIT Central Circle(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 439/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, Cc-2(1) Vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Old Cgo Bldg, 804, Mehta, 8Th Floor, Mk Road, 602-603, Prasad Mumbai – 400020. Chambers,Opera House, Mumbai - 400004 Pan/Gir No. Aaopm3805D Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 87/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita 439/Mum/2022) (A.Y: 2006-07) Shri Kumar Rasikal Vs. Dcit, Cc-2(1) Mehta, Old Cgo Bldg, 804, 8Th 602-603, Prasad Floor, Mk Road, Chambers,Operahouse, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai - 400004 Pan/Gir No. Aaopm3805D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri .Harsh Kapadia.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Tejinder Pal Singh.DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. 3. In compliance to the notice, the assessee has filed the revised return of income on 15.05.2012 disclosing a total income of Rs.27,10,720/-. There was survey ITA No. 439/Mum/2022 & CO No. 87/Mum/2022 Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Goyal Engineering Polymer (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is 24

ITA 5023/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Jain, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 68

account of accrued interest, ignoring the facts that this deduction was not claimed in the original return of income or by way of revised return of income and accordingly the claim made during the assessment proceedings was not in line with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court ... that no claim of deduction on account of accrued interest has been made in the return of income nor assessee has filed any revised return under section 139(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the deduction has been claimed during the course of assessment proceedings which

Mehsana Dist.Co.Op.Milk Producers Union Ltd., Mehsana vs. The Dy.CIT., Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 97/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 245Section 80P

show cause notice, the assessee has offered this interest income of Rs.30,49,742/- for the assessment year 2011-12 and filed a revised return on 26.09.2012. It is therefore requested not to make any addition on this account. The assessing officer has rejected the above claim and held that ... assessee after the receipt of the show cause notice on 19.10.2010 relevant to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee filed a revised return offering the interest income of Rs. 30,49,744/- by filing the revised return on 26.03.2012, however after the present impugned order dated 02.11.2011 passed

M/S S.R.Batliboi & Associates LLP, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 237/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.237/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S S.R. Batliboi & Associates Llp………................……............…..….. Appellant 3Rd Floor, Bloc B, 22, Camac Street, Kolkata. [Pan: Achfs9118A] Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bangalore....................................................…..............……. Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. Ghosh, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 31, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 07, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, S.R. Batliboi & Associates Llp ("The Appellant"), Respectfully Craves To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Dated 21St Dec 2021 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) - Nfac [“Cit(A)"], Delhi (Received By The Appellant On 21St Dec 2021) Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act'") On The Following Grounds Which Are Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Cpc ("Ao") & Cit(A) Has: General 1. Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Computing Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 1,18,67,86,431 As Against Income Of Rs. 1,18,63,50, 198 Offered To Tax By The Appellant In Return Of Income For The Subject Assessment Year; Ex-Parte Order, Non-Grant Of Sufficient Opportunity Of Being Heard

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36Section 36(1)

erred in levying interest under Section 234B of the Act of Rs. 2,68,40,416 instead of Rs. 14,17,660 computed in Revised Return of Income; Levy of interest under Section 234C of the Act 2 I.T.A. No.237/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/s S.R. Batliboi & Associates ... erred in levying interest under Section 234C of the Act of Rs. 83,64,021 instead of Rs. 31,80,588 computed in Revised Return of Income; The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before

M/S Swiss Park Vanijya India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 162/CHNY/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Kumar (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80A(5)Section 80I

claiming deduction u/s 80-IA for Rs.93.18 Lacs. However, the required Form No.10CCB was not field with this return of income. The assessee filed revised return of income on 22.11.2019 after having filed its Audit Report in Form 10CCB on 21.11.2019. This return was again revised on 20.10.2020 to make ... position that emerges is that the assessee has made claim u/s 80-IA in the original return of income as well as in the revised return of income filed subsequently. The only reason to deny the deduction is the fact that the assessee did not upload Form No.10CCB along with

Kanagaraj Shanmugam, Salem vs. ITO (International Taxation) Ward 1(2), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2936/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. M.Abhinaya and Shri V.Balaji (CA)-Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 15Section 234DSection 244ASection 274Section 5(2)Section 9

exemption amounting to INR3,940,843 claimed by the Appellant under Article 16(1) of India-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement ('Treaty') in the revised return of income, based on erroneous and incorrect interpretation that the Appellant is not eligible to claim relief under Article 16(1) of India

Wheels India Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Ltu-2, Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2341/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. M.S. Deeptha (JCIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 80Section 80I

ground no.7 are that the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IC for Rs.115.45 Lacs. However, the claim was revised to Rs.1012.13 Lacs in the revised return of income. It transpired that the assessee had an eligible unit at Uttarakhand which commenced its operations on 20.04.2009. Accordingly, the initial year ... original return on 30.11.2012 in which a claim of Rs.1,15,45,243/- was made u/s 80IC of the Act. Subsequently, in its revised return, the appellant claimed deduction of Rs.10,12,13,326 u/s 80IC. The appellant's claims for judicial relief are predicated on the judicial pronouncements which

Suchetan Commercial & Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6575/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(1)

rendered were shown on the bill that was raised and also on the ground that the said claim was not made by filing a revised return of income. It is not in dispute that the assessee had furnished the bills for brokerage before the ld. AO and the brokerage paid

Suchetan Commercial & Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 2 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6574/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 56(1)

Indicare Hospital Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 805/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleindicare Hospital Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – 1 Flat No. 6, 3Rd Floor 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park Hosbanoo Mansion, Gokhale Road Road No. 16Z Near Bpl Gallery, Naupada Wagle Industrial Estate Thane - 400062 Thane, Mumbai - 400604 Pan: Aabci2433F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Department Represented By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(2)Section 37Section 40A

income on 20.11.2014 declaring total loss of ₹.1,32,19,650/ for the A.Y. 2014-15. 2 Indicare Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Subsequently assessee filed revised return of income on 30.09.2015 declaring total loss of ₹.1,31,20,139/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice

Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 680/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 139Section 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 ... 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 of FTC. 5. The Assessee filed a rectification

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore vs. M/S. Manyata Promoters Private Limited (Erstwhile Embassy Office Parks Private Limited ), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, while the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 573/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 154Section 232

Companies Act 2013. The assessee filed the original return of income for the AY 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 and later filed a revised return on 30.03.2018 declaring total income of NIL under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act (the Act) and a book profits of Rs.26

M/S. Manyata Promoters Private Limited (Erstwhile Embassy Office Parks Private Limited Since Merged With Manyata Promoters Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD)- Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, while the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 548/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 154Section 232