← 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

DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Citi Bank Overseas Investment Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 321/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the assessee cannot make new claim otherwise than by filing a revised return." 3. So far as the first and second grounds of appeal is concerned, it is sufficient to take note of the fact that the learned CIT(A) has granted

Pr. CIT Circle-2, Mumbai vs. Bharat Prtroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1601/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1601/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Bharat Petroleum बिधम/ Pcit, Circle-2 Corporation Ltd. Room No.344, Aayakar Vs. Taxation Section, Bhavan, M. K. Road, 4Th Floor, Bharat Bhavan 1, Mumbai-400020. 4 & 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb2902M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-02 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 21.02.2020 For Assessment Year [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ay”] 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. MistryFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 32A

further pointed out that, the assessee also did not furnish the reconciliation of the excess claim made u/s 32AC of the Act in the revised return of income, particularly when the figures of additions to fixed assets reflected in the financial statements did not reconcile with the additions reported ... para 3.2 of the subject notice, it is stated that it is gathered from the addition to total assets as per the original revised returns tax audit report and Balance-Sheet as follows: Details Plant and Machinery Other assets Total additions Original return 3931.56 645.51 4577.07 Revised return

DCIT Circle- 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid findings

ITA 1195/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 250

income on 28/09/2012 declaring loss at Rs. 89,03,86,233 and book profit under section 115 JB at Rs. Nil. The assessee filed revised return of income on 29/03/2014, without any change in the total income/loss declared in the original return of income. The assessee had given on lease

Sri. M. Nagaraja, Mysore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1), Mysore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1905/BANG/2019[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

For Respondent: Shri S. Parthasarathi
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 263

issued. Page 3 of 23 Shri M. Nagaraja, Mysore The Hon'ble CIT(A), Mysore failed in adjudicating upon the validity of the revised return which is filed beyond the scope u/s 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 8. NA 1961 and also the validity of the assessment framed ... basis of the invalid revised return. Without prejudice, the addition/disallowance is 9. excessive, arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be NA deleted in full. 10. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest Rs.25,65,111 and u/s.234B and 234C of the Act. Rs.64,187 TOTAL TAX EFFECT Rs.39

Addl. CIT, Spl Rnage-7, New Delhi vs. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2379/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2014-15
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

income of Rs.33,47,65,000/- by holding that the assessee in the course of assessment has filed the computation along with copy of revised return of income 7 ITA No.3209/Del./2014 & Ors. for AY 2006-07 by ignoring the contention of the AO that the assessee has not furnished ... copy of revised return for F.Y.2005-06 relevant to AY 2006-07 during the course of assessment.” 4. Grounds No.1, 2 & 3 relate to the issue whether the payment made for acquisition cost of participating interests in various blocks would qualify for intangible assets in order to be eligible for depreciation

Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 158/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2013-14
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

income of Rs.33,47,65,000/- by holding that the assessee in the course of assessment has filed the computation along with copy of revised return of income 7 ITA No.3209/Del./2014 & Ors. for AY 2006-07 by ignoring the contention of the AO that the assessee has not furnished ... copy of revised return for F.Y.2005-06 relevant to AY 2006-07 during the course of assessment.” 4. Grounds No.1, 2 & 3 relate to the issue whether the payment made for acquisition cost of participating interests in various blocks would qualify for intangible assets in order to be eligible for depreciation

Addl. CIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi vs. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 7435/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2011-12
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

income of Rs.33,47,65,000/- by holding that the assessee in the course of assessment has filed the computation along with copy of revised return of income 7 ITA No.3209/Del./2014 & Ors. for AY 2006-07 by ignoring the contention of the AO that the assessee has not furnished ... copy of revised return for F.Y.2005-06 relevant to AY 2006-07 during the course of assessment.” 4. Grounds No.1, 2 & 3 relate to the issue whether the payment made for acquisition cost of participating interests in various blocks would qualify for intangible assets in order to be eligible for depreciation

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6281/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

income of Rs.33,47,65,000/- by holding that the assessee in the course of assessment has filed the computation along with copy of revised return of income 7 ITA No.3209/Del./2014 & Ors. for AY 2006-07 by ignoring the contention of the AO that the assessee has not furnished ... copy of revised return for F.Y.2005-06 relevant to AY 2006-07 during the course of assessment.” 4. Grounds No.1, 2 & 3 relate to the issue whether the payment made for acquisition cost of participating interests in various blocks would qualify for intangible assets in order to be eligible for depreciation

Addl. CIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2119/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2010-11
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

income of Rs.33,47,65,000/- by holding that the assessee in the course of assessment has filed the computation along with copy of revised return of income 7 ITA No.3209/Del./2014 & Ors. for AY 2006-07 by ignoring the contention of the AO that the assessee has not furnished ... copy of revised return for F.Y.2005-06 relevant to AY 2006-07 during the course of assessment.” 4. Grounds No.1, 2 & 3 relate to the issue whether the payment made for acquisition cost of participating interests in various blocks would qualify for intangible assets in order to be eligible for depreciation

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3816/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2009-10
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

income of Rs.33,47,65,000/- by holding that the assessee in the course of assessment has filed the computation along with copy of revised return of income 7 ITA No.3209/Del./2014 & Ors. for AY 2006-07 by ignoring the contention of the AO that the assessee has not furnished ... copy of revised return for F.Y.2005-06 relevant to AY 2006-07 during the course of assessment.” 4. Grounds No.1, 2 & 3 relate to the issue whether the payment made for acquisition cost of participating interests in various blocks would qualify for intangible assets in order to be eligible for depreciation

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3210/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2008-09
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

income of Rs.33,47,65,000/- by holding that the assessee in the course of assessment has filed the computation along with copy of revised return of income 7 ITA No.3209/Del./2014 & Ors. for AY 2006-07 by ignoring the contention of the AO that the assessee has not furnished ... copy of revised return for F.Y.2005-06 relevant to AY 2006-07 during the course of assessment.” 4. Grounds No.1, 2 & 3 relate to the issue whether the payment made for acquisition cost of participating interests in various blocks would qualify for intangible assets in order to be eligible for depreciation

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ongc Videsh Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3209/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2022AY 2007-08
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 42

income of Rs.33,47,65,000/- by holding that the assessee in the course of assessment has filed the computation along with copy of revised return of income 7 ITA No.3209/Del./2014 & Ors. for AY 2006-07 by ignoring the contention of the AO that the assessee has not furnished ... copy of revised return for F.Y.2005-06 relevant to AY 2006-07 during the course of assessment.” 4. Grounds No.1, 2 & 3 relate to the issue whether the payment made for acquisition cost of participating interests in various blocks would qualify for intangible assets in order to be eligible for depreciation

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Netherlands vs. DCIT (It), Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 441/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 195Section 244ASection 250Section 254

Netherlands and does not have a permanent establishment (PE) in India. After filing the original return of income on 03.09.2008, it was revised return by reporting total income at Rs.25,40,79,858/- on 29.03.2010. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) on 18.10.2012 assessing total income

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Netherlands vs. DCIT (It), Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 440/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 195Section 244ASection 250Section 254

Netherlands and does not have a permanent establishment (PE) in India. After filing the original return of income on 03.09.2008, it was revised return by reporting total income at Rs.25,40,79,858/- on 29.03.2010. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) on 18.10.2012 assessing total income

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Netherlands vs. DCIT (It), Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 439/KOL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 195Section 244ASection 250Section 254

Netherlands and does not have a permanent establishment (PE) in India. After filing the original return of income on 03.09.2008, it was revised return by reporting total income at Rs.25,40,79,858/- on 29.03.2010. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) on 18.10.2012 assessing total income

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Netherlands vs. DCIT (It), Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 438/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 195Section 244ASection 250Section 254

Netherlands and does not have a permanent establishment (PE) in India. After filing the original return of income on 03.09.2008, it was revised return by reporting total income at Rs.25,40,79,858/- on 29.03.2010. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) on 18.10.2012 assessing total income

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Netherlands vs. DCIT (It), Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 437/KOL/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.437 To 441/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2012-13 M/S. Koninklijke Philips N.V Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Deloitte Touché Income Tax (It), Circle-1(2), Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. Bengal Intelligent Park, Vs. Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Kolkata-700 091. (Pan: Aacck0806B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Respondent By : Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: All These Appeals By Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A), Kolkata-22 Vide Order Nos. Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035034204(1) Dated 23.08.2021 For A.Y. 2008-09, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162630(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2009-10, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162589(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2010-11, Itba/Apl/S/250/2021-22/1035162672(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2011-12 & Itba/Apl/S/250/2021- 22/1035162702(1) Dated 28.08.2021 For Ay 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 254 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Acit(It), C-1(2), Kolkata Dated 23.07.2019, 13.11.2019 (For Ays 2008-09 & 2009-10) & 07.02.2020 (For Ays 2010-11 To 2012-13). Koninklijke Philips N.V, A.Ys: 2008-09 To 2012-13 2. Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. H. Sema, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153(5)Section 195Section 244ASection 250Section 254

Netherlands and does not have a permanent establishment (PE) in India. After filing the original return of income on 03.09.2008, it was revised return by reporting total income at Rs.25,40,79,858/- on 29.03.2010. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) on 18.10.2012 assessing total income

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

which the assessee has not claimed in the return of income. The option available to the assessee in this regard is to file a revised return of income and to claim the same. However, in the present case, assessee has not filed the revised return of income. Hence ... assessee which the assessee has not claimed in its return of income. For this the option available to the assessee is filing a revised return of income. In the case under consideration no such revised return ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore Page 5 of 22 of income

Gmr Energy Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

which the assessee has not claimed in the return of income. The option available to the assessee in this regard is to file a revised return of income and to claim the same. However, in the present case, assessee has not filed the revised return of income. Hence ... assessee which the assessee has not claimed in its return of income. For this the option available to the assessee is filing a revised return of income. In the case under consideration no such revised return ITA Nos.513 & 526/Bang/2022 M/s. GMR Energy Limited, Bangalore Page 5 of 22 of income

Microland Foundation, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 411/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayana, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(2)Section 13(9)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 3

follows: The assesee is a public charitable trust. For the assessment year 2017-2018, the return of income was filed on 31.10.2017. Subsequently a revised return was filed on 29.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs.46,31,670. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee had accumulated income amounting to Rs.93