“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

Sparsh Anil, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. The Income Tax Officer, Range-3(5), Lakhimpur -2

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

ITA 100/LKW/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow03 Jun 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2017-18 Sparsh Anil, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Main Road, Polic Kotwali Lakhimpur, Range-3(5), Lakhimpur Kheri U.P. 262701 Lakhimpur-2 Pan : Aivpa9977F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Shubham Rastogi, Ca Respondent By Shri Pankaj Sachan, Dr Date Of Hearing 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03/06/2022

Section 144Section 69A

from blood relations during the year. (5) That Assessee is an old tax payer and regularly filing his income tax return. During the year, Revised Return has been filed at a gross income of Rs.10,30,800/- and Net Agriculture Income of Rs. 54,550/- .Cash was deposited

Mahesh Arvind Tilve, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2014/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2011-12 Mahesh Arvind Tilve, Principal Commissioner Of Income Flying Kite 204, B Wing, Tax, Mumbai -17, Neptune Living Point, Room No. 120, 1St Floor, Lbs Marg, Bhandup (West), Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, Mumbai - 400078 G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aaapt1010B Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2022

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (CIT DR)

Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

return of income filed by the assessee and further he brought to our notice page 16 of the paper book which is revised return of income filed by the assessee against the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, he submitted that the AO accepted the revised return of income

A.C.I.T.Akola Cir., Akola vs. The Khamgaon Urban Co-Op Bank Ltd., Khamgaon

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 98/NAG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.The Acit, The Khamgaon Urban Co-Op Akola Circle, Akola Bank Ltd, “Dhanawardhini”, Vs. Shriram Shaligram Plots, Khamgaon Dist. Buldhana-444 303 Pan: Aaaa T5049D (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Rajeev Benjwal, Cit-Dr Respondent By Sh. Kapil Hirani, Adv.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) was justified in so holding though the assessee had not filed a revised return of income claiming enhanced loss. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of the learned

M/S.V.K. Textiles Processors, Erode vs. ITO, Ward - 2 (1), Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and the

ITA 791/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2115/Chny/2019 & 791/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) M/S. V.K.Textile Processors Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1) 207/2,3 & 208/1, Erode. Gangapuram Village, Chittode, Erode-638 102. Pan:Aalfv 0640C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2231/Chny/2019 & C.O.No.87/Chny/2019 [In Ita No.2231/Chny/2019 – Ay -2016-17] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Income Tax Officer, M/S. V.K.Textile Processors Ward-2(1) 207/2,3 & 208/1, Erode. Gangapuram Village, Chittode, Erode-638 102. Pan:Aalfv 0640C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) : Mr. S.Sridhar, Advocate -Erode अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Mrs. V.Sreedevi, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Revenue By 31.05.2022 : सुनवाई क"तार ख/Date Of Hearing 02.06.2022 : घोषणा क"तार ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per G.Manjunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Mrs. V.Sreedevi, JCIT

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

assessment proceedings, it was submitted before the Assessing Officer that the provisions of section 40A(3) has no application, because the assessee has filed revised return and treated bought note purchase & sales as commission agent and offered net commission income for taxation and thus, when the expenditure is not claimed ... learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has challenged applicability of provisions section 40A(3) of the Act, in light of revised return filed subsequent to survey proceedings, otherwise, did not dispute cash payment made in excess of prescribed limit. The learned CIT(A), after considering relevant

ITO, Ward - 2 (1), Erode vs. M/S. V.K. Textile Processors, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and the

ITA 2231/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mrs. V.Sreedevi, JCIT

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

V.K.Textiles Processors, Erode vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee and the

ITA 2115/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Mrs. V.Sreedevi, JCIT

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sah. Patsanstha Ltd, Satara vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Satara

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 1306/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1306/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Divyadatta Digamber Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. Nagari Sah. Patsanstha Ltd., Moti Heights, Azad Chowk, Koregaon, Satara- 415501. Pan : Aaeas1871L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Cit(A)-4, Pune’S Order Dated 24.06.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-4/Ward- 3, Satara/479/2017-18/188 Involving Proceedings U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Transpires During The Course Of Hearing That The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Rejecting Its Section 154 Rectification Filed On 26.07.2017 Thereby Disallowing Section 80P Deduction Claim Therein

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80A(5)Section 80P

return of income. It is also clear that the appellant has not bothered to file a revised return of income when it had the opportunity to do so in order to claim the deduction u/s 80P. Therefore, the AO has rightly rejected the appellant's rectification application. The appellant ... wherein it is held that AO does not have a power to entertain additional claim, unless such a claim is made in the revised return filed within the due date for revised return. 6.3.3 The CBDT Circular No. 689 mentioned by the appellant in its ground of appeal is pertaining

DCIT Central Circle-31, New Delhi vs. Cheslind Textiles Ltd., Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5929/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 5929/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Vs Cheslind Textiles Ltd., Central Circle-31, Kharigram, P.B. No. 28, Post New Delhi-110055 Office-Gulabpura, Distt. Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcc2435K Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.06.2022

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR

Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee should have claimed the TUF subsidy by filing revised return income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the facts that TUF subsidy ... taxable income. The AO vide order dated 26.03.2015 disregarded the letter submitted by the assessee by stating that the assessee should have filed the revised return for claiming the benefit. The ld. CIT(A) admitted the additional ground and after verifying the claim allowed the appeal of the assessee

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Shilpi Cabletronics Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1047/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 133(6)

facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,07,60,733/- claimed on account of LC Discounting Charges in the Revised Return filed for the AY 2011-12 without discussing the complete submission made by the AO in the Remand Report dt. 08.01.2016. 2. That on the facts ... facts in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,07,60,733/- claimed on account of LC Discounting Charges in the Revised Return filed for the AY 2011-12 without examining the genuiness of expenses and without examining whether the ten parties(suppliers) has claimed the above expenses in their returns

Shri Rameshbhai B. Rangani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The CIT (A)-3, Rajkot, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 173/RJT/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 30/05/2022

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

share thereof is received by the assessee. Further, it was found that the assessee has filed his Return of income but not filed Revised return in compliance to notice issued u/s 148 and has not offered the profit earned from the above sales consideration. 3.1 Since the gain arising from ... objection on levying penalty. Accordingly, penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act is leviable. 3.4 The assessee has neither filed revised return of income in response to notice u/s 148 dated 15-02-2010 nor given any clarification on the issues covered therein. Also in the return of income

Belvedere Golf and Country Club Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 502/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

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

Section 139(1)Section 43B

filing the return of income. 3. The original return of income was filed on 30.10.2018 declaring total loss of Rs.6,37,61,755/-. Thereafter, revised return of income was filed on 29.10.2018 A.Y. 2017-18 Page 2 of 3 declaring total loss of Rs.7,70,58,985/-. The Assessing Officer

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 120/AHD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, M/S. Adani Enterprises Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Vs Adani House, Nr. Mithakhali Ahmedabad Six Roads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009 Pan : Aabca 2804 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, Ar & Shri Biren Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, AR &For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR

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

filed its return of income for the year under consideration originally on 24.09.2009 declaring a total income of Rs.132,22,21,015/-. Thereafter, a revised return was filed by the assessee on 29.03.2011 declaring a total income of Rs.133,78,83,656/-. In the assessment completed under Section

Kiritkumar Fakirchand Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 349/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Kiritkumar Fakirchand Mehta, A.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, P.K. House, Vs. Circle-5(2), B/H, Mj Library, Ahmedabad. Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 139(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Accordingly the AO held that there is no provision under the Act for revising the belated return of income. Therefore the AO rejected the revised return filed by the assessee and framed assessment under section 143(3) of the Act based on the income declared in the original return ... penalty proceedings contended that he has voluntary disclosed the income under the capital gain on the transfer of the property in the revised return dated 18th October 2016 and paid entire taxes thereon. According to the assessee, all the materials facts relating to the capital gain were duly disclosed

Kalpesh Nemichand Oswal, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 6 (5), Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1808/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

Section 143(3)

accordingly. 3. Mr. Desai vehemently argued that the lower authorities have been rightly rejected assessee’s claim since not filed by way of a revised return thereby violating Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC). He fails to rebut the clinching fact that their lordships have made clear

Sai Life Science Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle3-(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 85/HYD/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarm/S.Sai Life Science Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan Aaecs6143F …..Appellant. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri V. Siva Kumar For Shri S. Rama Rao. Respondent By : Shri Rohit Majumdar. (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022. O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.15.06.2020 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Hyderabad Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. There Is A Delay Of 147 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed An Application

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar for Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Majumdar. (D.R.)

Section 115JSection 311

pharma products as 100% EOU and filed its Return of Income on 30.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs.33,96,798. 3 Subsequently, a revised return was filed by the assessee declaring a total income of Rs.51,31,934. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted from

Mars Telecom Systems Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 421/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Sanjay Mutha, CAFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Gautam, DR

Section 43

added back to the income. The Assessing officer did not allow the same as the claim was not made by way of a revised return. Subsequently before the Commissioner (appeals) a similar claim was made in the submissions made. The Commissioner(appeals) did not allow the claim. The Appellant with ... treated as business loss and set off against other business income. We wish to inform you that the time limit for filing of revised return is over for the return filed for asst. year 2016-17 and as such we are not able to revise the return and therefore particularly

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 381/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Venkatraman IyerFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 143

CBDT Circular No.9j2014 and subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings has claimed depreciation on 'intangible asset'. This claim is not supported by any revised return. 11. It is submitted that in the BOT agreement, the possession of land is handed over to the assessee by the NHAIjGovt

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 380/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Venkatraman IyerFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 143

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Transmission Corporation of Telangana Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the C

ITA 212/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charydy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. …..Appellant. Vs. M/S. Transmission Corporation Of Telanagana Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan Aafct0166J …..Respondent. C.O. No.7/Hyd/2020 (In Ita No.212/Hyd/2020) Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Transmission Corporation Of Telanagana Ltd., Hyderabad. …..Cross Objector. Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Assessee By : Shri M. Chandramouleswar Rao, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Kumar. (Cit-D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2022. O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dt.27.12.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of C.O. No.7/Hyd/2020 Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Filed C.O. Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Limited Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On 30.10.2017 Electronically Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.19,99,81,170. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income On 31.12.2018 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.27,17,86,410 Under Normal Provisions & Rs.331,50,98,943 Under Mat. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. Notices U/S.143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued & Duly Served On The Assessee Requiring The Assessee To Furnish Various Details.

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandramouleswar Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar. (CIT-D.R.)

Section 143(2)

Income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 30.10.2017 electronically declaring a total income of Rs.19,99,81,170. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised Return of Income on 31.12.2018 declaring a total income of Rs.27,17,86,410 under normal provisions and Rs.331,50,98,943 under MAT. The return

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1641/HYD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Venkatraman IyerFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 143