← 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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Circle Bhopal, Bhopal vs. Mayank Welfare Society, Indore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

ITA 776/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115BSection 143(3)

also noted that the assessee cannot make any fresh claim which was not in the return of income other than by filing a revised return of income. The Hon'ble Supreme court has been specific on this issue in the 17 Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 case of Goetze (India

The DCIT, (Exemption) Circle, Bhopal vs. M/S. Mayank Welfare Society, Bhopal

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the AY 2013-14

ITA 232/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115BSection 143(3)

also noted that the assessee cannot make any fresh claim which was not in the return of income other than by filing a revised return of income. The Hon'ble Supreme court has been specific on this issue in the 17 Mayank Welfare society ITANos.232 & 776/Ind/2018/17 case of Goetze (India

M/S. Gmr Enterprises Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 2310/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.2310/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2015-2016 M/S.Gmr Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. The Dy.Commissioner Of (Successor To Gmr Holdings P.Ltd) Income-Tax, Central Circle 2(2) V. Bangalore. No.25/1 Skip House, Museum Rd. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan : Aaccr1554R. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Yogesh Thar, Ca Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 25.10.2021 O R D E R Per Bench:- This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 14.10.20199 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds & Various Sub Grounds. The Assessee By Its Application Dated 13.07.2020 Has Also Raised An Additional Ground. The Learned Ar During The Course Of Hearing Submitted That Grounds No.Ii & Iii May Be Adjudicated & The Other Grounds May Be Left Open. Therefore, Grounds No.Ii & Iii Are Reproduced Below:-

For Appellant: Sri.Yogesh Thar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viib)

Development Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT in Writ Petition (C) No.4554 of 2011, held that an error or omission can be rectified only filing a revised return within the prescribed time limit u/s 139(5) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, it was concluded by the DRP that the assessee is not entitled

Arctern Consulting Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

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

ITA 279/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am It(Tp)A No.279/Bang/2016 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 M/S.Arctern Consulting Private The Asst.Commissioner Of Limited, 49/8, 2Nd Floor, 60 Feet Income-Tax, Circle 1(1)(1) V. Bangalore. Road, Near Jyothi Nivas College, Koranmangala Industrial Layout Bangalore. Pan : Aaeca9113F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Osd)-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021 Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 17.12.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-2012. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Providing Contract Software Development (Swd) Services & Information Technology Enabled (Ite) Services To Its Associate Enterprises (Aes). For The Assessment Year 2011-2012, The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.11.2011 Declaring Loss Of Rs.92,43,787. Later, Revised Return On 08.02.2012 Declaring Loss Of Rs.44,54,773. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act.

For Appellant: Smt.Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(OSD)-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Enterprises (AEs). For the assessment year 2011-2012, the assessee had filed return of income on 30.11.2011 declaring loss of Rs.92,43,787. Later, revised return on 08.02.2012 declaring loss of Rs.44,54,773. The assessment was selected for scrutiny by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T.Act

Mohan Sukumaran, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 141/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

return of income. According to the AO, the assessee could have claimed deduction by way of return filed under s.139(1) or by filing revised return within the given time limit and since this was not done by the assessee, the claim of allowance of deduction of Rs.2 ... assessee that such mistake in making wrong claim will not operate as any kind of estoppel against the assessee regardless of whether the revised return was filed or not. It is contended that once the assessee is in a position to show that it has been over-assessed under

Mohan Sukumaran, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

return of income. According to the AO, the assessee could have claimed deduction by way of return filed under s.139(1) or by filing revised return within the given time limit and since this was not done by the assessee, the claim of allowance of deduction of Rs.2 ... assessee that such mistake in making wrong claim will not operate as any kind of estoppel against the assessee regardless of whether the revised return was filed or not. It is contended that once the assessee is in a position to show that it has been over-assessed under

M/S Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Dev. Corp. Ltd., Panchkula vs. ACIT, Circle, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed in above terms

ITA 1369/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) On Various Grounds, Including Challenging The Reference Made By The Ao To Special Audit. The Ld.Cit(A)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Smt.C.Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 142Section 143(3)

from operations. (9) Showcause why not an amount of Rs.1050.40 cr be added back to the returned income as same has been reduced in revised return. Adjourned to 20/12/16 at A.M. 19. On the said date the assessee filed reply and the order sheet entry notes “case adjourned to 23/12/16 ... provided by the assessee. 28. To the query as to why Rs.1050 crores has been reduced from the income of the assessee in the revised return filed .the assessee explained in detail that the department had already collected taxes on the same in earlier years when it had rejected

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 11, Pune vs. Igate Global Solutions Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2624/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Srivastava
Section 10A

parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.35,28,126/- by way of a revised return of income. The ld. AR, C.H. Naniwadekar submits that the assessee purchased the business from IT&T Limited during the Financial Year ... note that the AO held the capital gain of Rs.26,28,847/- to be chargeable to tax without there being any revised return of income but only finding the same during the course of assessment proceedings. Likewise, the AO also held an amount of Rs.6,14,296/- disallowable without there

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited, (Earlier Known As Igate Global Solutions Ltd), Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 11, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2395/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Srivastava
Section 10A

parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.35,28,126/- by way of a revised return of income. The ld. AR, C.H. Naniwadekar submits that the assessee purchased the business from IT&T Limited during the Financial Year ... note that the AO held the capital gain of Rs.26,28,847/- to be chargeable to tax without there being any revised return of income but only finding the same during the course of assessment proceedings. Likewise, the AO also held an amount of Rs.6,14,296/- disallowable without there

Star Paper Mills Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 127/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri P. M .Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 80ISection 92B

shut up for all the times to come merely because it is raised for the first time in appellate proceedings in absence of a revised return filed before the Assessing Officer. For the aforementioned reasons, we therefore admit this ground raised by the assessee. 46. Coming to the merits

M/S. S R Batliboi & Company LLP, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 22, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2589/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manish Borad, Am]

Section 10(4)Section 40

Cess before the AO and therefore, should not be allowed. 4. In his re-joinder, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has filed revised return of income claiming the educational Cess, which is placed at pages 196 to 198 of paper book. 5. We have heard rival submission ... Besides, we note that in the present case, though the claim for deduction was not raised in the original return or by filing revised return, the Appellant - Assessee had indeed addressed a letter claiming such deduction before the assessment could be completed. However, even if we proceed on the basis

N.Santhanam, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 328/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.328/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mr. N.Santhanam Vs The Assistant Commissioner Old No.14, New No.12, Income Tax, Seethammal Colony Extension, Central Circle-1(2) 1St Cross Street, Teynampet, Chennai-600 034. Chennai-600 018. Pan: Axups 6533R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

search. The case has been taken up for scrutiny and notice u/s.143(2) has been issued calling upon various details. The assessee has filed revised return after initiation of scrutiny proceedings on 23.03.2016 admitting total income at Rs.3,42,16,440/-, including additional income of Rs.1.00 crore which was offered ... during the course of search, the assessee failed to admit it in the original return filed and only after scrutiny proceedings were initiated, a revised return was filed and admitting the additional income. The AO further observed that penal liability u/s. 271AAB arises on the unaccounted income admitted during

Saf Yeast Co. P.Ltd., Mumba vs. ACIT CC-7(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1800/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Tax Cc-7(1), Vs. 419, Swastik Chambers, Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, Chembur, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Hemant Chimanlal Leuwa, DR
Section 80I

submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee can claim the relief of ₹34,52,000/-only by filing the revised return of Income. Since the assessee has not filed revised return of income the same cannot be entertained at this stage. 7. Aggrieved with the above ... considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that AO has not considered the claim for the reason that no revised return was filed to make this claim and hence the same was not allowable. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that it is evident that

Dy CIT - CC- 7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Saf Yeast Co.Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1714/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Tax Cc-7(1), Vs. 419, Swastik Chambers, Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, Chembur, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Saf Yeast Co. Pvt. Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of Income 419, Swastik Chambers, Chembur, Vs. Tax Cc-7(1), Mumbai-400071. Room No. 653, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcs 9080 J Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Hemant Chimanlal Leuwa, DR
Section 80I

submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee can claim the relief of ₹34,52,000/-only by filing the revised return of Income. Since the assessee has not filed revised return of income the same cannot be entertained at this stage. 7. Aggrieved with the above ... considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that AO has not considered the claim for the reason that no revised return was filed to make this claim and hence the same was not allowable. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that it is evident that

DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai vs. K Raheja Copr Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4085/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodk. Raheja Corporate Services Acit-14(2)(1), Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, G- Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan: Aabcn 9309B Appellant Respondent K. Raheja Corporate Pvt. Ltd., Dcit- Central Circle 4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Bandra – (E), Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. 400 021. Pan: Aaacp0522B Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle - M/S K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. (2)(1), Central Range -4 Ltd., Plot No. C-30, Block -G, Pr.Cit (C)-2 Bkc, Bandra (Eest), Room No. 1918, 19Th Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Pan: Aaacp0522B Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri. Shiddaramappa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (AR)For Respondent: Shri. Shiddaramappa (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14A

normal provisions and “Book Profit” of Rs. 57,40,39,755/ under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee company filed a revised return of income on 30.03.2017, declaring an income of Rs. 43,98,18,510/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under ... from Business & Profession”, and not under the head “Income from House Property”. It was submitted by ld. A.R that after the filing of the revised return of income by the assessee company, the CBDT vide its Circular No. 16 of 2017, dated K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT

K. Raheja Corporate Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7109/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodk. Raheja Corporate Services Acit-14(2)(1), Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. C-30, G- Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Pan: Aabcn 9309B Appellant Respondent K. Raheja Corporate Pvt. Ltd., Dcit- Central Circle 4(2), Room No. 1918, 19Th Plot No. C-30, G-Block, Opp. Sidbi, Bkc, Bandra – (E), Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 051 Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. 400 021. Pan: Aaacp0522B Appellant Respondent Dcit, Central Circle - M/S K. Raheja Corp. Pvt. (2)(1), Central Range -4 Ltd., Plot No. C-30, Block -G, Pr.Cit (C)-2 Bkc, Bandra (Eest), Room No. 1918, 19Th Mumbai-400 051 Vs. Floor, Air India Building, Pan: Aaacp0522B Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (Ar) Revenue By : Shri. Shiddaramappa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Aggrawal (AR)For Respondent: Shri. Shiddaramappa (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14A

normal provisions and “Book Profit” of Rs. 57,40,39,755/ under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee company filed a revised return of income on 30.03.2017, declaring an income of Rs. 43,98,18,510/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under ... from Business & Profession”, and not under the head “Income from House Property”. It was submitted by ld. A.R that after the filing of the revised return of income by the assessee company, the CBDT vide its Circular No. 16 of 2017, dated K. Raheja Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT

A.Manohar Prasad, Chennai vs. ITO Media Ward 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09 are treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1892/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

admitting total income of ‘Nil’ and Rs.53,96,480/- respectively. The assessee had also filed revised return for both assessment years on 27.05.2008 and 27.04.2009. The assessments have been 4 ITA. Nos: 1891 & 1892/Chny/2018 subsequently reopened u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) for the reasons recorded

A.Manohar Prasad, Chennai vs. ITO Media Ward 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09 are treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1891/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

admitting total income of ‘Nil’ and Rs.53,96,480/- respectively. The assessee had also filed revised return for both assessment years on 27.05.2008 and 27.04.2009. The assessments have been 4 ITA. Nos: 1891 & 1892/Chny/2018 subsequently reopened u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) for the reasons recorded

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Sakal Papers Ltd, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 695/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.695 & 1356/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 12Section 80I

facts apropos this issue are that the assessee claimed Rs.6,26,21,766/- as deduction on account of Wage Board Revision by filing a revised return. The AO did not dispute the filing of the revised return. On being called upon to explain the reasons for claiming such deduction ... Govt., the assessee recomputed the amount of wages pertaining to the year under consideration and claimed deduction for the same by means of the revised return. The assessee is admittedly following the mercantile system of accounting. Since the amount of additional wages pursuant to the Central Govt. notifying the recommendations

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. Sakal Papers Ltd, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1356/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.695 & 1356/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14

Section 12Section 80I

facts apropos this issue are that the assessee claimed Rs.6,26,21,766/- as deduction on account of Wage Board Revision by filing a revised return. The AO did not dispute the filing of the revised return. On being called upon to explain the reasons for claiming such deduction ... Govt., the assessee recomputed the amount of wages pertaining to the year under consideration and claimed deduction for the same by means of the revised return. The assessee is admittedly following the mercantile system of accounting. Since the amount of additional wages pursuant to the Central Govt. notifying the recommendations