← 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

M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wrd-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 764/AHD/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

record is co-terminus with the power of the Assessing Officer. The failure to advert to the claim in the original return or the revised return cannot denude the appellate authorities of their power to consider the claim, if, the relevant material is available on record and is otherwise tenable ... case, that, even if, the claim made by the assessee company does not form part of the original return or even the revised return, it could still be considered, if, the relevant material was available on record, either by the appellate authorities, (which includes both

The ACIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 1190/AHD/2005[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

record is co-terminus with the power of the Assessing Officer. The failure to advert to the claim in the original return or the revised return cannot denude the appellate authorities of their power to consider the claim, if, the relevant material is available on record and is otherwise tenable ... case, that, even if, the claim made by the assessee company does not form part of the original return or even the revised return, it could still be considered, if, the relevant material was available on record, either by the appellate authorities, (which includes both

Chandrakant Laxman Jadhav, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 1202/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1202/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Chandrakant Laxman Jadhav, The A.C.I.T., A/P Mahalunge, Chakan Talegaon Vs Circle-10, Road, Tal, Khed, Pune-410501. Pune. Pan No. Acjpj 0442 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 54

deduction. Also no Return of Income was filed in response to notice u/s 148 within 30 days. The ROI filed on 19/03/2014 is not revised return. Hence relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs CIT (284 ITR 323) no deduction against ... deduction. Also no Return of Income was filed in response to notice u/s 148 within 30 days. The ROI filed on 19/03/2014 is not revised return. Hence relying on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs CIT (284 ITR 323) no deduction against

Shri Ritum Jain, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 466/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Ritum Jain Dcit, Cc-3(2), Kolkata 4A, Metro Towers, 1, Ho Chi Vs. Minh Sarani, Kolkata – 700 071. Pan: Actpj 4441 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Ar Respondent By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2022 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.09.2021 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’]. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao In Rejecting The Assessee’S Rectification Petition Filed U/S 154 Claiming The Subsidy Received By The Assessee As Industrial Promotion Assistance (Ipa) From The State Govt, Under West Bengal Industrial Promotion (Assistance To Industrial Units) Scheme, As Capital Receipt In Place Of Revenue Receipt. The Claim Of The Assessee Was Rejected By The Ld. Ao As Well As The Ld. Cit(A) On The Ground That The Same Cannot Be Claimed By The Assessee In The Rectification Petition U/S 154 Since The Same Was Not Claimed In The Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee In View Of The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In Case Of Goetze India Ltd. Vs Cit In 157 Taxman 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Consider The Fact That The Assessee’S Case Is Squarely Covered By Judicial Decisions On Similar Facts In The Case Of Sharda Cropchem Ltd. Vs Dcit In 71 Itr (Trib) 141 & Dcit & Kashmir Steel Rolling Mills In 130/Asr/2014. Therefore, The Action Of 2 Shri Ritum Jain A.Y. 2014-15 The Ld. Cit(A) In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee Is Unjustified & The Claim Needs To Be Allowed.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, ACIT, DR
Section 139(5)Section 153ASection 154Section 250

Taxman 1 SC and holding that any fresh claim could have been lodged by the assessee by way of filing a revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Income Tax Act. He held that no new claim can be lodged before Assessing Officer by way of filing rectification

D.C.I.T., Circle-36, Kolkata vs. Smt. Suman Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2537/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A No.2537/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Circle-36, Kolkata........….…..…...............……........……...…..….. Appellant Vs. Smt. Suman Agarwal...……….…………………..............................…… Respondent Room No.9, 5Th Floor, 20B, Abdul Hamid Sarani, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Agipa7061M] Appearances By: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Biswajit Das, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 17, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 30, 2022

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

correct Capital A/c. failed to explain the source of her However, neither the request of the assessee to assets/investments in personal file the revised return was acceded to nor the balance sheet. submissions made by the assessee explaining the difference in the Capital A/C were appreciated by the learned

Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 699/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA
Section 144C

which the income was first assessable ; or (b) one year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under sub-section

M/S Kemwell Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 657/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Harish V.S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(11)Section 32Section 50

engaged in the business of manufactures of drugs and pharmaceutical. The assesee filed its original return of income on 14/10/2010 and subsequently filed a revised return of income on 29/9/2010 declaring an income of Rs.1,03,05,662/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the notice

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

ITA 548/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, CA
Section 144C

which the income was first assessable ; or (b) one year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under sub-section

M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

ITA 69/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

1 M/s. Bhivaram PannalalKumawat vs ACIT , Central Circle-3, Jaipur आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bhivaram Pannalal Kumawat, Jaipur

Appeal are disposed off and all the appeals of the

ITA 117/JPR/2021[ 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2022

Bench: Us By The Department. The Facts As Well As Issues, Are More Or Less Involving The Disallowance Of Labour Expenses & Therefore, These Twelve Appeals Were Head

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

1 M/s. Bhivaram PannalalKumawat vs ACIT , Central Circle-3, Jaipur आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Nadeem Letherware Exports, Chennai vs. DCIT Ncc 5, Chennai

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

ITA 1828/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1590/Chny/2017 & 1828/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Nadeem Leatherware Exports, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 10/23, Covelong Muthu Street, Income Tax, Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Non Corporate Circle 5, [Pan: Aaafn3464F] Chennai - 06. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. & Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, Dated 04.05.2017 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Order Under Section 154 Of The Act Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-14 On 27.09.2013 Declaring An Income

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. and Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 50C

assessment year 2013-14 on 27.09.2013 declaring an income 2 I.T.A. Nos.1590/Chny/17 & 1828/Chny/18 of ₹.2,17,47,500/-. The assessee has filed revised return of income on 08.09.2014 admitting the same income and claiming refund of ₹.11,71,840/-. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that

M/S Nadeem Leatherware Exports, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle -5, Chennai

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

ITA 1590/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1590/Chny/2017 & 1828/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Nadeem Leatherware Exports, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 10/23, Covelong Muthu Street, Income Tax, Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Non Corporate Circle 5, [Pan: Aaafn3464F] Chennai - 06. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. & Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, Dated 04.05.2017 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Order Under Section 154 Of The Act Dated 21.03.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-14 On 27.09.2013 Declaring An Income

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A. and Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 50C

assessment year 2013-14 on 27.09.2013 declaring an income 2 I.T.A. Nos.1590/Chny/17 & 1828/Chny/18 of ₹.2,17,47,500/-. The assessee has filed revised return of income on 08.09.2014 admitting the same income and claiming refund of ₹.11,71,840/-. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has noted that

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -(1), Mumbai

ITA 749/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sujit Ghosh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 69

provisions and book profit of Rs.76,40,58,837/- under section 115JB of the Act. Thereafter, the 3 M/s. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. assessee filed revised return of income on 16.05.2011 revising its total income at Rs.55,33,94,596/- and again filed revised return of income ... taken to P&L A/c. was reduced from you profit for the year while computing income in the 7 M/s. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. second revised return. As you are following mercantile system of accounting and further in view of the various provisions of the I.T. Act the same should

Prashanta Kumar Ghose, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2794/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 147Section 148Section 54

assessee, as, the deduction under section 54 of the Act was not claimed, either in the original return of income or by filing a revised return of income. While coming to such conclusion, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India

Sadiya Raoof Dhanani, Mumbai vs. ACIT-21(3), Mumbai

In the result, we find that the claim of the assessee is correct and therefore, we restore the grounds of appeal before the learned AO with a direction to compute the capital gain on sale of share ...

ITA 4343/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Sadiya Raoof Dhanani Tax, Central Circle-21(3), Room 281, 28Th Floor, Kalpatru Heights No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Chs Ltd., Dr. Nair Road, Agripada, Vs. Piramalchamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 011 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadas2607K Assessee By : Shri Sarkar Sharma, Ar : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sarkar Sharma, AR
Section 143(3)

learned Assessing Officer. The learned CIT(A) also concurred with the view of the learned Assessing Officer that since the time for filing of revised return is already lapsed, it is not possible to entertain any claim for deduction. Further, on the merits of the case, he held that assessee

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Apotex Pharmachem India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1227/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2010-11
For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha
Section 10B

both the activities was taken together separately while applying the formula in respect of R&D and Manufacturing. In view of such, assessee filed revised return declaring total income of Rs.6,43,02,812/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 8,36,86,236/- u/s. 10B of the Act. The deduction

M/S Vardhman Textiles Limited, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1347/CHANDI/2018[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 1996-97
For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR

verify the claim, however the AO did not allow on the ground that the assessee had not claimed the said expenditure in its revised return. The assessee again approached the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO vide order dt. 29/03/2007. 4. Being aggrieved the assessee carried

Electronics & Quality Development Centre, Gandhinagar vs. The ACIT (Exemptions), Circle-1, Ahmedabad

ITA 857/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of Electronics & Quality Income-Tax (Exemptions), Vs Development Centre, Circle-1, Ahmedabad B/177/178, Gidc Electronics Estate, Sector-25, Gandhinagar – 382024 Pan : Aaate 0718 R Assessment Years : 2014-15 Electronics & Quality The Dy. Commissioner Of Development Centre, Vs Income-Tax (Exemptions), B/177/178, Gidc Electronics Estate, Circle-1, Ahmedabad Sector-25, Gandhinagar – 382024 Pan : Aaate 0718 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: These Two Appeals, One Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 807/Ahd/2018 & Other Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 857/Ahd/2018, Are Cross Appeals Which Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 16.01.2018, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Revenue’S Appeal; Ground No.1 Of Which Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 2(15)

Appellant, Electronics & Quality Development Centre (EQDC) has filed its original return of income on 30.11.2014. The Appellant has also filed its Revised Return of Income on 31.03.2016 vide acknowledgment ITA No. 807 & 857Ahd/2018 Electronics & Quality Development Centre AY : 2014-15 6 No.147459951310316, declaring deficit of (-) Rs.4 ... Appellant has, with letter dated 24.10.2016 to the learned Assessing Officer, submitted copies of Acknowledgement of Revised Return of Income, Statement giving Computation of Income along with audited accounts, audit report in Form No. 10B as required u/s. 12A(b) of the IT Act, 1961 as well as copy

The DCIT (Exemptions), Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Electronics & Quality Development Centre, Gandhinagar

ITA 807/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2014-15 The Dy. Commissioner Of Electronics & Quality Income-Tax (Exemptions), Vs Development Centre, Circle-1, Ahmedabad B/177/178, Gidc Electronics Estate, Sector-25, Gandhinagar – 382024 Pan : Aaate 0718 R Assessment Years : 2014-15 Electronics & Quality The Dy. Commissioner Of Development Centre, Vs Income-Tax (Exemptions), B/177/178, Gidc Electronics Estate, Circle-1, Ahmedabad Sector-25, Gandhinagar – 382024 Pan : Aaate 0718 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: These Two Appeals, One Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 807/Ahd/2018 & Other Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 857/Ahd/2018, Are Cross Appeals Which Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 16.01.2018, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Revenue’S Appeal; Ground No.1 Of Which Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, CIT-DR
Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 2(15)

Appellant, Electronics & Quality Development Centre (EQDC) has filed its original return of income on 30.11.2014. The Appellant has also filed its Revised Return of Income on 31.03.2016 vide acknowledgment ITA No. 807 & 857Ahd/2018 Electronics & Quality Development Centre AY : 2014-15 6 No.147459951310316, declaring deficit of (-) Rs.4 ... Appellant has, with letter dated 24.10.2016 to the learned Assessing Officer, submitted copies of Acknowledgement of Revised Return of Income, Statement giving Computation of Income along with audited accounts, audit report in Form No. 10B as required u/s. 12A(b) of the IT Act, 1961 as well as copy

Asstt. CIT (OSD) - CC -7 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Macrotech Developers Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S Lodha Developers Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 68/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: S Shri Rifaur Rahamn & Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit – Cc-7(3) Vs. Macrotech Developers Room No. 655, 6Th Ltd (Successor To Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bellissimo Crown Mk Road, Mumbai – Buildmart Pvt Ltd) 400020. (Earlier Known As Lodha Crown Build Mart Ltd) 412, 17-G, Vardhaman Chambers, Cp Road, Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1490J Appellant .. Respondent Macrotech Developers Vs. Dcit – Cc-7(3) Ltd (Successor To Room No. 655, 6Th Bellissimo Crown Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Buildmart Pvt Ltd) Mk Road, Mumbai – (Earlier Known As 400020. Lodha Crown Build Mart Ltd) 412, 17-G, Vardhaman Chambers, Cp Road, Horniman Circle Fort, Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacl1490J Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

income electronically on 30.08.2015 for the A.Y 2015-16 disclosing a total income of Rs.63,89,62,7282/-.Subsequently the assesee has filed revised return of income on 21.03.2017 with a total income of Rs. 64,35,71,675/- And the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice