← 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 Karnataka State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/183/2017HC Karnataka08 Jun 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.I.ARUN

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260

which is mandatory for assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing officer was never issued and served on the assessee in respect of the revised return on the facts and circumstances of the case? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled ... State of Karnataka. The assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2008-09 on 30.09.2008. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return on 09.03.2010. The return was selected for scrutiny. However, it is the claim of the assessee that no notice under Section

M/S. Cisco Systems Capital (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 2614/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92C

setting off brought forward losses. The case was selected for scrutiny and relevant statutory notices were issued to the assessee. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 28/03/2017 declaring ‘nil’ total income after setting off brought forward losses. The Ld.AO observed that assessee had international transaction of Rs.10

Hitachi Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5712/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava(Through Video Conferencing) Hitachi Ltd. Vs. Adit Unit 304-306, 3Rd Floor, Circle – 1(2), Abw Eelgance Tower, International Taxation, Jasola District Centre New Delhi New Delhi - 110025 Pan : Aaach 2953 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Tarandeep Singh, Adv Revenue By Shri Prabhakant, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/06/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 44

Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 30.10.2007 declaring total income at Rs.1,58,95,266/-. Thereafter assessee filed revised return of income on 31.03.2009 declaring total income at Rs.1,61,51,304/. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter notices

DCIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Blue Stat Engineering and Electronic Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 694/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 694/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) Dcit-1(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Blue Star Engineering Room No.533/579, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Blue Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Star Electro Mechanical Road, Mumbai-400020. Ltd.) Ground Floor, Kasturi Building Jamshedji Tata Road, Mohan. T. Advani Chowk, Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 149/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Blue Star Engineering बिधम/ Dcit-1(1)(1) Room No.533/579, 5Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Blue Vs. Star Electro Mechanical Ltd.) Aayakar Bhawan, M. K. Ground Floor, Kasturi Road, Mumbai-400020. Building Jamshedji Tata Road, Mohan. T. Advani Chowk, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecb1558M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj Sheth Revenue By: Shri Tharian Oommen (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 06.11.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -02, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2014-15. 694/M/2019 A.Y. 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen (DR)
Section 115JSection 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

after referred to as the Act) other than Section 115JB of the Act was worked out at Rs.(-) 20,24,92,408/-. A revised return was filed on 30.03.2016 at a loss of Rs.16,85,14,222/- under normal provisions and at loss of Rs.227,72,858/- under MAT provisions

M/S.Neminath Mumbai Shelter, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2554/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodita No(S). 2554, 2885, 2952, 3526 & 3527/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year(S): 2009-10 To 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Neminath Mumbai Shelter Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai 101/102, Kalpak Apartment, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg, Road No. 16, Sidharth Nagar, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400 062

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: S/shri G.N Makwana & Sushil Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Indrakumar (supra), the Assessing Officer specifically lay his hands on unexplained gifts, in that situation the assessee had mode voluntary disclosure and filed a revised return. In the present case, the Department failed to collect any material during the course of survey and the Assessing Officer is simply harping upon

Inmarco Industries Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 10 (1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6528/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleinmarco Industries Pvt Vs. Acit 10(1)(1) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Bldg, 5B Mumbai. Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400059. Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci3624R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Manpreet Duggal, Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -21 Mumbai, Passed U/S. 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, DR
Section 143Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

income electronically for the A.Y 2011-12 on 29.11.2011 with total income of Rs.5,34,75,916/-.Further, the assessee has filed the revised return of income on 30.03.2013 declaring a total income of Rs.5,35,44,581/.- Subsequently, the A.O. has received the information from the Investigation Wing

Shri Rajnibhai Shivlal Modi, Himatnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, S.K.Ward-3, Himatnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 866/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

appeal of the assessee after granting relief to the extent of Rs. 2,91,350/- which was already shown by the assessee in the revised return as additional income earned on the R.A. Bill. 5. During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the counsel contended that assessee has already ... filed revised return of income vide which net profit of Rs. 2,91,350/- on R.A. Bill of Rs. 57,57,910/- was disclosed and during the course of original assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has accepted the submission of the assessee and not made any addition in the original

Essence Landmarks Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee allowed as indicated above

ITA 386/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Essence Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(2)(2) 119, Crystal Paradise Mall Room No. 146A, 1St Floor 1St Floor, Kfc Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off. Linking Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400050 Pan: Aabce5971E (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Essence Landmarks Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(2)(2) 119, Crystal Paradise Mall Room No. 146A, 1St Floor 1St Floor, Kfc Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off. Linking Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 050 Pan: Aacck8724A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt Janvi PamnaniFor Respondent: Shri Usha Gaikwad
Section 139Section 201(1)Section 40

provisions of chapter XVII of the Act, that later on it withdrew the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) in the revised return, that it relied upon the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Ltd.(293 ITR 226), that the AO and the FAA held that facts ... statute book with effect from 01/04/2013, that the act of the assessee of deleting the addition under section 40(a)(ia) in the revised return for the assessment year 2012-13 was not in consonance with the judgment of the Hon’ble of Apex Court or the Act, that

Essence Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee allowed as indicated above

ITA 385/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Essence Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(2)(2) 119, Crystal Paradise Mall Room No. 146A, 1St Floor 1St Floor, Kfc Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off. Linking Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400050 Pan: Aabce5971E (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Essence Landmarks Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 12(2)(2) 119, Crystal Paradise Mall Room No. 146A, 1St Floor 1St Floor, Kfc Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off. Linking Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 050 Pan: Aacck8724A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt Janvi PamnaniFor Respondent: Shri Usha Gaikwad
Section 139Section 201(1)Section 40

provisions of chapter XVII of the Act, that later on it withdrew the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) in the revised return, that it relied upon the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Ltd.(293 ITR 226), that the AO and the FAA held that facts ... statute book with effect from 01/04/2013, that the act of the assessee of deleting the addition under section 40(a)(ia) in the revised return for the assessment year 2012-13 was not in consonance with the judgment of the Hon’ble of Apex Court or the Act, that

ACIT Circle-16(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Sky Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 6297/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Circle – 16(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Sky Ltd., R.No. 439, 4Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, C1 Wadia Aayakar Bhavan, Mk International Centre, Road, Mumbai – Worli, Mumbai – 400020. 400025. Pan/Gir No. : Aagcs9294M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Shishir Dhamija Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri J.D. Mistry. Ar Date Of Hearing 03.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 24.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -4 Mumbai, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Shishir Dhamija CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J.D. Mistry. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 194HSection 40

return M/s. TATA Sky Ltd., Mumbai of income on 30.10.2007 declaring a total loss of Rs. 804,51,45,773/- and also filed revised return of income on 26.08.2008 with Total loss of Rs.805,36,36,98,514/- and the return of income was processed ... income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee has filed a letter dated 18.04.2012 to treat the revised return of income filed on 26.08.2008 as due compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act and also filed a letter dated 04.04.2012 requesting to provide

ACIT Cir 22(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Asian Chemical Industries, Mumbai

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

ITA 3579/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit, Circle – 22(1) Vs. M/S. Asian Chemical Rm No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Industries, Flat No. Piramal Chambers, 101, Mahir Building, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai Santacruz (W), – 400012. Mumbai.400054 Pan/Gir No. : Aabaa02702G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Azar Zain, Sr. Dr Respondent By : Shri Veer Kumar Shah, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2021

For Appellant: Shri Azar Zain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Veer Kumar Shah, AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50C

hands of co owners, when the assessee has not furnished the evidence of such redistribution to co owners and did not file copy of revised return of income showing the transaction of sale of property in the hands of co owners as per provisions of section ... sales proceeds for computation of capital gains. However, time limit to revise the return had lapsed and thus he could not file the revised return online. Therefore, during the course of assessment proceedings, a revised computation of income was filed with the A.O. vide letter dated 12th July

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corp., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 5784/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

condensed/concise grounds, as under: 1. Original ground no. 1 to 3 and 13 & 14;- a. It is contended that non acceptance of the revised return filed by the Corporation with in the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) is unlawful. 5 ITA Nos.3885/Del./2011; 3942/Del./2011; 3439/Del/.2014; 3440/Del./2014; 2201/Del ... 5784/Del./2014 C.O. Nos. 93/Del./2015; 94/Del./2015 & 158/Del./2015 b. It is contended that the CIT(Appeal) has made wrong conclusion that the revised return should have been filed before the completion of the processing u/s 143(1). 2. Original ground no.4 & 5:- a. It is contended that

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corp., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3440/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

condensed/concise grounds, as under: 1. Original ground no. 1 to 3 and 13 & 14;- a. It is contended that non acceptance of the revised return filed by the Corporation with in the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) is unlawful. 5 ITA Nos.3885/Del./2011; 3942/Del./2011; 3439/Del/.2014; 3440/Del./2014; 2201/Del ... 5784/Del./2014 C.O. Nos. 93/Del./2015; 94/Del./2015 & 158/Del./2015 b. It is contended that the CIT(Appeal) has made wrong conclusion that the revised return should have been filed before the completion of the processing u/s 143(1). 2. Original ground no.4 & 5:- a. It is contended that

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corp., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3439/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

condensed/concise grounds, as under: 1. Original ground no. 1 to 3 and 13 & 14;- a. It is contended that non acceptance of the revised return filed by the Corporation with in the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) is unlawful. 5 ITA Nos.3885/Del./2011; 3942/Del./2011; 3439/Del/.2014; 3440/Del./2014; 2201/Del ... 5784/Del./2014 C.O. Nos. 93/Del./2015; 94/Del./2015 & 158/Del./2015 b. It is contended that the CIT(Appeal) has made wrong conclusion that the revised return should have been filed before the completion of the processing u/s 143(1). 2. Original ground no.4 & 5:- a. It is contended that

M/S. Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 2201/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

condensed/concise grounds, as under: 1. Original ground no. 1 to 3 and 13 & 14;- a. It is contended that non acceptance of the revised return filed by the Corporation with in the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) is unlawful. 5 ITA Nos.3885/Del./2011; 3942/Del./2011; 3439/Del/.2014; 3440/Del./2014; 2201/Del ... 5784/Del./2014 C.O. Nos. 93/Del./2015; 94/Del./2015 & 158/Del./2015 b. It is contended that the CIT(Appeal) has made wrong conclusion that the revised return should have been filed before the completion of the processing u/s 143(1). 2. Original ground no.4 & 5:- a. It is contended that

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3942/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

condensed/concise grounds, as under: 1. Original ground no. 1 to 3 and 13 & 14;- a. It is contended that non acceptance of the revised return filed by the Corporation with in the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) is unlawful. 5 ITA Nos.3885/Del./2011; 3942/Del./2011; 3439/Del/.2014; 3440/Del./2014; 2201/Del ... 5784/Del./2014 C.O. Nos. 93/Del./2015; 94/Del./2015 & 158/Del./2015 b. It is contended that the CIT(Appeal) has made wrong conclusion that the revised return should have been filed before the completion of the processing u/s 143(1). 2. Original ground no.4 & 5:- a. It is contended that

Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue, i

ITA 3885/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 36

condensed/concise grounds, as under: 1. Original ground no. 1 to 3 and 13 & 14;- a. It is contended that non acceptance of the revised return filed by the Corporation with in the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) is unlawful. 5 ITA Nos.3885/Del./2011; 3942/Del./2011; 3439/Del/.2014; 3440/Del./2014; 2201/Del ... 5784/Del./2014 C.O. Nos. 93/Del./2015; 94/Del./2015 & 158/Del./2015 b. It is contended that the CIT(Appeal) has made wrong conclusion that the revised return should have been filed before the completion of the processing u/s 143(1). 2. Original ground no.4 & 5:- a. It is contended that

ACIT, Circle- 21(2), New Delhi vs. Rolls Royce India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6913/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Shukla, CIT DR
Section 144CSection 254Section 92C

provide commercial information services and market support services to Rolls Royce International Ltd. relating to Indian territory and neighbouring countries. The taxpayer filed its revised return of income for AY 2011-12 at an income of Rs.38,22,94,149/-. The assessment was framed u/s 143 (3) read with section

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, ground No. 5 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2981/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Mmtc Ltd, Circle-16(2), Core-1, Scope Complex-7, New Delhi Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellant) (Respondent) Mmtc Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, Core-1, Scope Complex-7, Range-5, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35ASection 80GSection 92C

given the credit of TDS in full to the extent of Rs. 36551193/- as claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income. The ld AO restricted the credit of TDS to Rs. 17664053/-. The learned CIT – A directed the LD AO to verify the claim ... been allowed full credit of tax deduction at source at Rs. 3,65,51,193/- as claimed by the assessee in its revised return of income. The ld AO granted the credit only to the extent of Rs. 1,76,64,053/-. The grievance of the assessee is that credit

Mmtc Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, ground No. 5 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2074/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Mmtc Ltd, Circle-16(2), Core-1, Scope Complex-7, New Delhi Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellant) (Respondent) Mmtc Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, Core-1, Scope Complex-7, Range-5, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35ASection 80GSection 92C

given the credit of TDS in full to the extent of Rs. 36551193/- as claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income. The ld AO restricted the credit of TDS to Rs. 17664053/-. The learned CIT – A directed the LD AO to verify the claim ... been allowed full credit of tax deduction at source at Rs. 3,65,51,193/- as claimed by the assessee in its revised return of income. The ld AO granted the credit only to the extent of Rs. 1,76,64,053/-. The grievance of the assessee is that credit