“revised return”

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.4784 & 4785/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/S Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 98, Ajanta House, Vs. Income-Tax-Central Circle 6(2),19Th Floor, Air India Govt. Industrial Area, Hindustan Naka, Building, Nariman Point, Charkop,Kandivli (West), Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 067. Pan No. Aaaca5579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

deduction raised by an assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings except for where the same is raised by filing of a revised return of income. The aforesaid view of the CIT(A) is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze ... Income-tax (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant-assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The claim, therefore

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.4784 & 4785/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) M/S Ajanta Pharma Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of 98, Ajanta House, Vs. Income-Tax-Central Circle 6(2),19Th Floor, Air India Govt. Industrial Area, Hindustan Naka, Building, Nariman Point, Charkop,Kandivli (West), Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 067. Pan No. Aaaca5579P (Appellant) (Respondent)

deduction raised by an assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings except for where the same is raised by filing of a revised return of income. The aforesaid view of the CIT(A) is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze ... Income-tax (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant-assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The claim, therefore

Shankarlal Virji Thakkar, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Thane

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ramlal Negishankarlal Virji Thakkar, Acit, Cc-1, 601, B, Garima Tower, Near Room No. 10, A Wing, 6Th Gurukul Bus Stop, Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road Panchpakhadi, No. 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Vs Thane(W)-400602. Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Pan: Aaacd1753G Assessee Respondent : Shri Veerkumar C. Shah (Ar) Assessee By Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2021 Order

learned CIT (Appeal) erred confirming the penalty which was levied without ITA No. 1947 Mum 2018-Shankarlal Virji Thakkar. considering the revised return of income filed by the assessee and further erred in confirming the penalty under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts ... income vide letter dated 16.05.2012. Out of the said declaration of Rs.5 lacs was offered in the hands of the assessee. Assessee filed the revised return on 07.03.2013 showing total-income of Rs.16,24,750/- including Rs.05 lacs for disclosure made pertaining to certain documents, loose papers and materials seized

Sai Samarth Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1, Thane

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3718/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3720/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 3721/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ M/S. Sai Samarth Enterprises Dcit-Central Circle-1, 107, Patel Building, Parel, Thane. Vs. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abufs9008B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, (Jm): The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 29.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

Department during the course of survey. It is only after the search that the assessee filed the revised returns, which itself would go to show that amount offered during the search is concealed income. There is no finding by the Tribunal that there was cessation of liability of these amounts ... assessee was given notice under Section 153A to file fresh return of his income. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised returns and the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A was accepted as such by the A.O. However, the A.O. was of the opinion that inasmuch that the income disclosed

M/S. Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cir 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2464/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) M/S. Dwarikesh Sugar बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-3(1)(1) Industries Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 511, Maker Chambers V, Bhavan, M. K. Road, 221, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabcd8192N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pankaj R. Toprani Revenue By: Ms. Jyotilakshmi Mayak Shri Sreenivasaraghavan सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24 /05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 20.03.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -08, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “I . The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 8, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Ld. Cit (A)") Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.4,25,53,711/- On Account Of Society Commission By Treating The Same As Prior Period Expenditure. 2. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Allowing Society Commission Of Rs.4,25,53,711/- In The Assessment Year Under Appeal Even Though The Liability For The Same

normal provision of the I. T. Act and Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act of Rs.49,39,072/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed the revised return of income declaring the same income. The case was selected for scrutiny. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued

North Karnataka Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No. 4372 & 4373/Mum/2012 (Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07) North Karnataka Expressway Acit – 10(1), 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. The Il & Fs Financial Vs. Center, Plot No. C-22; G- M.K. Road, Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai 400 020 Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400 051 Pan No. Aabcn3062F

original return of income for A.Y 2007-08 the assessee had claimed depreciation on the toll roads which however by way of a revised return of income was substituted by a claim for amortization of the cost of toll road. As noticed by the CIT(A) the assessee

Shalaka Sangh Co-Op Housing Soc. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey ()

disallowed assessee’s claim primarily on two reasoning. Firstly, such claim was not made either in the original return of income or through a revised return of income. Secondly, referring to section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, the assessing officer held that only interest/dividend income received from co-operative ... under section 80P(2)(d) cannot be allowed, as, such claim was not made either in the original return of income or in a revised return of income, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the disallowance. Consequently, he did not decide the merits of the issue. 6. The learned

Batliboi Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

conditioning and humidification, air control equipment and trading in engineering. The original return of income was filed by the assessee on 26/09/2013 and revised return was filed on 14/05/2014 declaring loss of Rs.4,65,01,710/- under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs.61

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Year 2007-08 by ld. DCIT, Circle 2(2), Mumbai – enclosed in pages 768 & 769 of the paper book filed before us. 9. 31/03/2009 Revised return of income filed by the assessee company for Asst Year 2007-08 by ld. DCIT, Range-2(2), Mumbai - enclosed in page

ACIT-12(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Mudrika Labels Private Limited Mumbia, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 12(3)(2) Vs. Mudrika Labels Pvt Room No. 128-H, 1St Ltd, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Gala No. 18, Niram Ind Mk Road, Mumbai – Estates, Chincholi 400020. Bunder Link Road, Malad West, Mumbai – 400064 Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm5217D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Gurbindar Singh, Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 11.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 19.05.2021 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) -20 Mumbai, Passed U/S. 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

proceedings, the A.O relied on the findings of the reassessment proceedings and the submissions of the assessee on the Mudrika Labels Pvt ltd., Mumbai revised return of income filed. But the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanations and dealt with the provisions ... penalty proceedings and observed that the assessee in the reassessment proceedings in lieu of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act has filed a revised return of income excluding the bogus purchases under a bonafide belief and to by peace with the Income tax department. In such circumstances

Narendra Kumar Janagid, Mumbai vs. ITO - 23(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm Narendra Kumar Jangid Ito-23(2)(4) Room No. 115, 1St Floor R.No.6, Plot No.147, Rukminibai Chawl, Kherwadi, Bandra (East) Vs. Matru Mandir, Grant Road Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 007

case of Goetze (India) Ltd. has reiterated the power of ITAT to consider a claim which was made otherwise then by 3 3841/Mum/2019 revised return. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of the AO. The AO shall examine the assessees claim and duly

Malhaar Restaurant, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-27, Mumbai

In the result, the order passed by the learned PCIT u/s 263 of the income tax act is quashed and ground number 1 of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Pr. Commissioner Of Income Malhaar Restaurant Tax-27, Tower No.6, Vashi 2&4 Pearl Mansion, Station Railway Station Commercial Vs. Avenue Road, Chembur, Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai- Mumbai-400 071 400703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafm5273F

Restaurant; AY 16-17 account as business income. From that assessee has claimed remuneration to the partners of ₹ 2,041,875/–. Consequently assessee filed revised return where the total income was disclosed at ₹ 1,211,250. The additional income was credited as business income in the profit and loss account