← 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

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy, by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

Rs.14,17,87,795/- as Capital Gains from the above transaction in its original return of Income furnished to the Department. Subsequently, in its revised return of Income dated 15.6.2009, the assessee had admitted income of Rs.22,90,570/-, on the ground that the capital gains which arose

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

Rs.14,17,87,795/- as Capital Gains from the above transaction in its original return of Income furnished to the Department. Subsequently, in its revised return of Income dated 15.6.2009, the assessee had admitted income of Rs.22,90,570/-, on the ground that the capital gains which arose

Late Smt.K>Leelavathy by L/R Shri.M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

Rs.14,17,87,795/- as Capital Gains from the above transaction in its original return of Income furnished to the Department. Subsequently, in its revised return of Income dated 15.6.2009, the assessee had admitted income of Rs.22,90,570/-, on the ground that the capital gains which arose

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

Rs.14,17,87,795/- as Capital Gains from the above transaction in its original return of Income furnished to the Department. Subsequently, in its revised return of Income dated 15.6.2009, the assessee had admitted income of Rs.22,90,570/-, on the ground that the capital gains which arose

Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd., Baroda vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1038/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Waseem Ahmed & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2008-09 Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Acit, Cir.2(1)(2) Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan Vs Baroda. Race Course Circle, Baroda Pan : Aadcm 7339 H

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 3 18.3.2015. In response thereto, the assessee filed a revised return on 29.4.2009. Ultimately, re-assessment was completed by making addition on account of prior period expenses of Rs.16,02,98,000/-. Thereafter the ld.Pr.CIT-2 sought

Gujarat Industries Power Co. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 20/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

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

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

Rather the appellant has taken different stand by way of disclosing the above entire Income of Rs.71.01 crore in the revised return for AY 2004-05. Thus, it can be said that it was not the stand of appellant that above interest income of Rs.39 crores be taxed

Gujarat Industries Power Co. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 19/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

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

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80Section 801ASection 80I

Rather the appellant has taken different stand by way of disclosing the above entire Income of Rs.71.01 crore in the revised return for AY 2004-05. Thus, it can be said that it was not the stand of appellant that above interest income of Rs.39 crores be taxed

ACIT Central Circle2(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 722/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

return of income for the A.V. 2017-18 originally on 31.10.2017 admitting total income of Rs. 37,15,65,518/- and filed a revised return on 30.03.2019 revising the total income to Rs. 100,13,71,520/-. The revised return was selected for scrutiny under CA55. Notices ... because in the return of income, the assessee had not claimed the same and even in the revised return of income also not claimed the same. He, therefore, submitted the AO has rightly relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 710/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

return of income for the A.V. 2017-18 originally on 31.10.2017 admitting total income of Rs. 37,15,65,518/- and filed a revised return on 30.03.2019 revising the total income to Rs. 100,13,71,520/-. The revised return was selected for scrutiny under CA55. Notices ... because in the return of income, the assessee had not claimed the same and even in the revised return of income also not claimed the same. He, therefore, submitted the AO has rightly relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 637/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

return of income for the A.V. 2017-18 originally on 31.10.2017 admitting total income of Rs. 37,15,65,518/- and filed a revised return on 30.03.2019 revising the total income to Rs. 100,13,71,520/-. The revised return was selected for scrutiny under CA55. Notices ... because in the return of income, the assessee had not claimed the same and even in the revised return of income also not claimed the same. He, therefore, submitted the AO has rightly relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India

ACIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Tvs Motor Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1782/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2008-09 The The Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Vs. M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd., Income Tax, Company Circle Income Tax, Company Circle- Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Jayalakshmi Estates, 29 (Old Iii(2), New Block, 4Th Floor, 121, Iii(2), New Block, 4 No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai No.8), Haddows Road, Chennai Mahatma Mahatma Gandhi Gandhi Road, Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai Nungambakkam, Chennai Pan/Gir No.Aaacs 7032 B Aaacs 7032 B (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Ar Revenue By : Dr. S.Palanikumar, Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/4/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palanikumar, CIT (
Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

consideration i.e. 2008-09, the Assessing Officer computed the total income at Rs.91,46,18,434/- and the total loss returned as per their revised return was Rs.59,82,66,374/-. The assessee would state that they had incurred loss of Rs.32,78,84,171/- from their Himachal Pradesh Unit

Merck Performance Materials Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1210/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1210/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Merck Performance Materials बिधम/ The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Chemtreat Composites India Tax – 15(2)(2), Mumbai, Pvt. Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Godrej One, Pirojsha Nagar, M.K. Road, Eastern Express Highway, Mumbai - 400020 Vikhroli (East), Mumbai- 400079 Pan : Aabcc5609B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी) / Respondent) For The Appellant/Assessee: Arati Vissanji For The Respondent/Revenue: C.T. Mathews सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary: 1. By Way Of The Present Appeal The Appellant/Assessee Has Challenged The Order Dated, 02.12.2019 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 24, Mumbai (Hereafter Referred To As „The Cit(A)‟] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter Referred To As „The Act‟), Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Had Dismissed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order, Dated 29.12.2017, Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: C.T. Mathews
Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

original return of income filed by the Appellant was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. The Appellant, however, filed a revised return of income on 28.09.2012 declaring „Nil‟ income under normal provisions of the Act after claiming the set-off of brought forward losses, and declaring Book Profits ... under Section 115JB of the Act. ITA. No. 1210/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 5. The revised return filed by the Appellant was picked up for detailed scrutiny and vide order, dated 28.02.2014, assessment was framed on the Appellant under Section 143(3) of the Act. The income of the Appellant

DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, for assessment year 2013 – 14 of appeal of the AO as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7550/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)

indirectly offering the delinquency support income which was net off to provision for doubtful debts was offered to tax. On noting this assessee filed revised return of income to disallow the only net amount for AY 2013-14. As per working ... being provision for non-performing assets and standard assets. This sum was added in the computation of the total income. In the revised return the assessee claimed two new deductions, 1 delinquency support receipts against the provision of ₹ 262,340,000/–, 2. Delinquency support receipts already offered

Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Range-20, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 700/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 700/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2015-16 ) Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aactp-3767-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -20, Room No.418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ronak Doshi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri R.K.Sahu & Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai -20 (In Short ‘The Pcit’) Dated 12/03/2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘ The Act’ )

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: S/Shri R.K.Sahu and Milind Chavan
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 61

interest income. The assessee filed its original return of income on 08/10/2015 declaring total income of Rs.65,65,84,800/- . Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 31/03/2017 declaring total income as Nil. Along with the revised return of income the assessee filed computation stating that the assessee ... revocable. The assessee enjoys pass through status u/s. 61 to 63 of the Act. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee referred to the revised return of income along with computation of income at page 401 to 433of the paper book. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Applicomp (I) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4131/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain, D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)

allowable in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. as the assessee had not filed any revised return for A.Y.2010-11 within the prescribed time limit for such claim. ITA No.4131/M/2014 & CO No.09/M/2016 3 M/s. Applicomp (India) Ltd. 4. The appellant prays that

M/S Jaysons Infrastructure India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 403/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 80I

eligible to claim deduction under section 80IA of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. Issues in respect of revised return: 6. The Learned CIT(A) is not justified in failing to appreciate that the appellant has filed a revised return which was not considered ... AY.2012-13 on 30-09-2012 declaring NIL income after claiming deduction of Rs.32,15,273/- u/s.80-IA of the Act. Subsequently, filed a revised return of income on 04-10-2012 declaring NIL income after claiming deduction of Rs.1,79,36,583/- u/s.80-IA of the Act. Another revised return of income

M/S Jaysons Infrastructure India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 402/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 80I

eligible to claim deduction under section 80IA of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. Issues in respect of revised return: 6. The Learned CIT(A) is not justified in failing to appreciate that the appellant has filed a revised return which was not considered ... AY.2012-13 on 30-09-2012 declaring NIL income after claiming deduction of Rs.32,15,273/- u/s.80-IA of the Act. Subsequently, filed a revised return of income on 04-10-2012 declaring NIL income after claiming deduction of Rs.1,79,36,583/- u/s.80-IA of the Act. Another revised return of income

ACIT, Circle- 9(2), New Delhi vs. Fresenius Kabi Oncology Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, C.O is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2371/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80Section 80I

threshold, without going into the merits of the claim, C.O No. 17/Del/2021 on the ground that additional claim made otherwise than by filing revised return of income cannot be entertained by the CIT(A). 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ... wherein the income of the assessee has been computed hereunder:- C.O No. 17/Del/2021 Taxable Business Income as 17,62,89,072 per revised return Add: Additions as discussed above On account of TPO 1,42,73,565 adjustments On account of disallowance of 36,209 ESI contribution for late deposit

The ITO(TDS) Ward-3(3), Guntur vs. The Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply Project

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 511/VIZ/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.511/Viz/2013 & 512/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Income Tax Officer (Tds) Vs. Executive Engineer Ward-3(3) Rural Water Supply Project Guntur Viswanadhapuram Podili, Prakasam Dist. [Pan : Hydro2981G] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.132 & 133/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of Ita No.511 & 512/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13) Executive Engineer Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Rural Water Supply Project Ward-3(3) Viswanadhapuram Guntur Podili, Prakasam Dist. [Pan : Hydro2981G] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT, DR
Section 133ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

आयकरअपीऱीयअधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (through web-based video conferencing platform) श्री

Pepperazzi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 448/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Final Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chajad, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 253Section 5

assessee did not furnish Tax Audit Report for I.T.A No. 448/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. 6 Pepperazzi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO the revised return. The Ld. AO noted that as per audited annual accounts submitted the assessee vide submission dated 12-09-2017, the assessee has debited financial ... satisfactory. The Ld. AO further noted that vide submission dated 27-11-2017, the assessee suo moto revised loss shown in the original and revised return and now had shown positive income of Rs. 7,79,550/-, without any basis or supporting evidence. The Ld. AO accordingly rejected assessee