← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(5), Samba vs. M/S Ganesh Metal Industries, Samba

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

ITA 297/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar04 May 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

time barred and therefore the assessment proceedings are null and void, though the case was selected under CASS on the basis of E-filed revised return.” 3. In the second round of appeal, in compliance to the order of the ITAT ... time barred and therefore the assessment proceedings are null and void, as the case was selected under CASS on the basis of E-filed revised return. He submitted that the assessee filed the original return of income for the AY 2008-09 on 28.09.2008 and the copy

Kemia Industries Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1276/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

spready over to the subsequent years also and though the assessee has accepted the position of law, it has not so far filed any revised return of income. The assessee was getting professional advices and it could not be a case that the assessee did not know the difference between

Pranav Saran, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-32(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 499/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar, Senior DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 194LSection 251Section 251(2)Section 28Section 45Section 45(5)Section 56Section 57

declared interest received on enhanced compensation u/s 28 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, of Rs.3,31,93,013/-. Later on, in the revised return, the assessee has claimed 50% deduction u/s 57 of the Act on the said interest. The AO accepted the interest income at Rs.1 ... shown in revised return. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had raised a claim by way of letter that even the balance amount of 50%, i.e., Rs.1,70,83,650/- itself was not taxable as enhanced interest was awarded u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition

Kyra Investments, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT, Circle-17(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1262/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1262/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Kyra Investments, 8/36, Grants Building, Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 Pan: Aagfk-3932-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -17(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai 400 020. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Swati Banwat ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Azhar Zain सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Ms. Swati BanwatFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain

original return of income the assessee had claimed dividend income as exempt. Since dividend was not subject to Dividend Distribution Tax, in the revised return the assessee has shown dividend income as Income from Business. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have erred in holding dividend income as Income

Narender Kumar Jain, Rishikesh vs. The Income Tax, Circle-1(4)(1), Rishikesh

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 36/DDN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Juneja, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 249

completed the assessment without application of mind, disallowed the Short Term Capital Loss of Rs. 10,23,992/- taking into consideration the revised return filed on 24.03.2017 for Rs. 8,12,190/-but while computing the income he has taken the figure of original ITR filed ... brought forward losses of Rs. 10,23,992/- and allow the Short term capital loss of Rs. 1,85,152/- as claimed in his revised return filed on 24.03.2017. 10. Brief facts of the case are that, the original return was filed electronically

Narender Kumar Jain, Rishikesh vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(4)(1), Rishikesh

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 35/DDN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun29 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Juneja, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 249

completed the assessment without application of mind, disallowed the Short Term Capital Loss of Rs. 10,23,992/- taking into consideration the revised return filed on 24.03.2017 for Rs. 8,12,190/-but while computing the income he has taken the figure of original ITR filed ... brought forward losses of Rs. 10,23,992/- and allow the Short term capital loss of Rs. 1,85,152/- as claimed in his revised return filed on 24.03.2017. 10. Brief facts of the case are that, the original return was filed electronically

Apurva Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent. Cir. 8(2) (Erstwhile ACIT, Cent. Cir. - 45), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 720/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

Taxman-1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that fresh claim can be made before AO by filing revised return of income only and no fresh claim can be made by way of filing a letter during assessment proceedings. In present case admittedly such claim was never made before

Kishore Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5469/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

Taxman-1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that fresh claim can be made before AO by filing revised return of income only and no fresh claim can be made by way of filing a letter during assessment proceedings. In present case admittedly such claim was never made before

Ashish Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5468/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

Taxman-1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that fresh claim can be made before AO by filing revised return of income only and no fresh claim can be made by way of filing a letter during assessment proceedings. In present case admittedly such claim was never made before

Pushpa Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5467/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

Taxman-1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that fresh claim can be made before AO by filing revised return of income only and no fresh claim can be made by way of filing a letter during assessment proceedings. In present case admittedly such claim was never made before

Shweta Avarsekar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the four assessees namely Mrs

ITA 5466/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Shweta Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 1401, 14Th Floor, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aaepa 2258 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Pushpa Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, Pushpanjali Apartment, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Old Prabhadavi Road, Prabhadavi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Mumbai-400025. Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Pan No. Aacpa 1273 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Ashish Avarsekar, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 13Th Floor, 1252, Pushpanjali Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai Apartment, Old Prabhadevi, Vs. (Erstwhile, The Asst. Commissioner Prabhadevi, Of Income Tax, Central Circle-45) Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Aaapa 6084 A Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Apurv Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kishan Vyas, CIT-DR

Taxman-1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that fresh claim can be made before AO by filing revised return of income only and no fresh claim can be made by way of filing a letter during assessment proceedings. In present case admittedly such claim was never made before

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

payable under section 115-O of the Act on distribution of dividend to the book profit. It neither in the original or any revised return changed its own stand. In such a situation, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court 57 in Goetze India Ltd. (supra), such

Novell Software Development (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 319/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

ITO Ward - 5(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Novell Software Development (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 280/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 280/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Micro Focus Software India Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier Known As Novell Software Development The Income Tax (India) Pvt. Ltd.), Officer, Bagmane Tech Park ‘D’ Ward – 4 (1)(3), Block, Bangalore. ‘Laurel’ 65/2, Vs. C V Raman Nagar, Byrasandra, Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aaacn6992K Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 319/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Assessee By Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Has Been Filed By Revenue As Well As Assessee Against Order Dated 29.12.2015 Passed By Ld.Ito Ward 5(1)(1)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Innovative Welfare and Educational Society, Gr. Noida vs. ADIT (E), Trust Circle, New Delhi

ITA 7599/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 2(15)Section 250

within 30 days from the date of the issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, but the Assessee has filed its revised return on 12.10.2012 even after the normal limitation time period of 30.09.2012 for filing of any return, thus the return was accepted but treated ... grounds being academic in nature are not being adjudicated. (highlighted by us ) 9.10 From the judgments referred above it is clear that forprocessing the revised return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is necessary and mandatory

Innovative Welfare and Educational Society, Gr. Noida vs. ADIT (E), Trust Circle, New Delhi

ITA 7598/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 2(15)Section 250

within 30 days from the date of the issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, but the Assessee has filed its revised return on 12.10.2012 even after the normal limitation time period of 30.09.2012 for filing of any return, thus the return was accepted but treated ... grounds being academic in nature are not being adjudicated. (highlighted by us ) 9.10 From the judgments referred above it is clear that forprocessing the revised return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is necessary and mandatory

ITO (Exemptions), New Delhi vs. M/S. Innovative Welfare and Educational Society, New Delhi

ITA 166/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 2(15)Section 250

within 30 days from the date of the issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, but the Assessee has filed its revised return on 12.10.2012 even after the normal limitation time period of 30.09.2012 for filing of any return, thus the return was accepted but treated ... grounds being academic in nature are not being adjudicated. (highlighted by us ) 9.10 From the judgments referred above it is clear that forprocessing the revised return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act, issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act is necessary and mandatory

M/S Frick India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5997/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Frick India Ltd. Vs. Acit, Range-11, 809, Surya Kiran Building, C.R.Building, 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg I.P.Estate New Delhi- 110 001 New Delhi-110002 Pan – Aaacf0410C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234B

exempt income shall also take into account & give credit for the suo motu disallowance for Rs. 87,597/- made by the appellant in his revised return of income. Subject to the above the addition for Rs. 18,41,000/- made by the AO u/s 14A through application of Rule ... determined by the AO shall exceed 10% of the amount of dividend income. It was submitted that unlike in the earlier years in the revised return of income suo moto disallowance was made by the assessee but the Ld. Tax Authorities below have not taken the same into consideration

M/S Frick India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5996/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. R.K.Panda & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Frick India Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), 809, Surya Kiran Building, 312, C.R.Building, 19, Kasturba Gandhi Marg I.P.Estate New Delhi- 110 001 New Delhi Pan – Aaacf0410C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

Appellant had declared gross income of Rs. 1,04,00,712/- and claimed exemption under Section 10(34) and (35). In the revised return sum of Rs 1,49,036/- was added back by the appellant as expenditure disallowable u/s 14A. The AO however did not accept the disallowance ... 5996/Del./2010 M/s. Frick India Ltd. motu disallowance for Rs. 1,49,036/- made by the appellant in his revised return of income. Subject to the above the addition for Rs. 14,96,211/- made by the AO u/s 14A through application of Rule 8D is directed to be deleted

Bhima Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range - 3, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2177/PUN/2017[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Apr 2022AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S. Bhima Sahakari Sahkar Jcit, Special Range - 3 Karkhana Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan Vs. A/P Madhukarar Nagar Swargate, Pune 411009 Tal. Daund, Dist Pune 413801 Pan – Aaatb1781B Appellant Respondent Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 21.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 1997-98 Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A) - 2, Pune Dated 04.07.2017 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit (A)-2/Set Aside/Pn/66/2011-12.755 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)

sale of surplus sugar cane from other sugar factories. Although in the original return, the receipt was shown as income but in the revised return the amount was claimed as non- taxable. The AO did not agree with the contention of the appellant and treated the entire receipts as revenue ... appearing in the Balance Sheet as a Differed Revenue Expenditure (Expenses) Differed Revenue Expenditure (Sugar Cane). But at the time of filling of Revised Return it is noticed that the amount of Rs. 1,73,27,029/- which was shown as a amount utilized from Sugar Cane Development Fund which