← 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.

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.

Pr. CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd.
109 Taxmann.com 93 · 2019 · High Court
77
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has the power under Section 254 to entertain a claim for deduction not made in the original return of income or a revised return filed before the Assessing Officer.

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

Durga Developers, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Ichalkaranji

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 305/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 142(1)

mistake of taking a substantial amount of less opening stock to the notice of the AO in the said year either by filing a revised return or by recoursing to any other modes. Further, he held that there was no such material evidence furnished by the assessee or demonstrated

DCIT, Cir.-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Birla Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2338/KOL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Revenue Has Filed An Application Seeking Condonation Of The Said Delay & Keeping In View Of The Reasons Given Therein, Which Are Supported By An Affidavit Filed By The Assessing Officer (Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata, We Are Satisfied That There Was A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 16 Days On The Part Of The Revenue In Filing This Appeal Before This Tribunal. Even The Ld. Counsel Has Not Raised Any Objection In This Regard. The Delay Of 16 Days On The Part Of The Revenue In Filing This Appeal Is Accordingly Condoned & This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Being Disposed Off On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT, Ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Akkal Dhudewewala, Ld.AR
Section 254

assessee for exemption was otherwise also not entertainable as the same was not made by the assessee either in the I.T Return or Revised Return as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC). 4. The disallowance made

DCIT RG 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4052/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Raptakos Brett & Co. The Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax- Range 5(3)(1), 253, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Mumbai - 400030 Worli, Vs. Mumbai - 400030 Pan: Aaacr1772R (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Raptakos Brett & Company Income Tax – 5(3)(1), Limited, Room No. 519, 5Th Floor, Aayakar 21 A, Mittal Tower Free Press Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Journal Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 20 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacr1772R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ronak Doshi (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 04/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/10/2020

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald (DR)
Section 115JSection 143Section 14A

rejected the claim of assessee holding that as per the settled law, assessee can claim deduction by filing revised return and not by filing revised statement. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Feeling aggrieved ... Ld.CIT (A) was justified in allowing loss claimed on sale of Mutual Funds and Equity shares by submitting revise statement and by not revising return of income and ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC).” 2. Before

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3076/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2000-01
For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit CIT, DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37Section 40A(9)Section 42Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

payable under section 115-O of the Act on distribution of dividend to the book profit. It neither in the original or any revised return changed its own stand. In such a situation, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Goetze India Ltd. (supra), such claim

DCIT, Corporate Circle- 1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. National Aluminium Company Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

ITA 65/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM

National Aluminium Company Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle- 1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

ITA 1/CTK/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. National Aluminium Company Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

ITA 69/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM

National Aluminium Company Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

ITA 39/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM

National Aluminium Company Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

ITA 338/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM

ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. National Aluminium Company Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and Revenue along

ITA 331/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.338/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.39/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.01/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.331/Ctk/2017 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.69/Ctk/2019 आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.65/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2009-2010, 2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhawan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M & Cross Objection No.11/Ctk/2019 Cross Objection No.02/Ctk/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.69/Ctk/2019 & 65/Ctk/2020) (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2015-2016 & 2016-2017) National Aluminium Company Limited, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Nalco Bhavan, P/1, Nayapalli, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan No. : Aaacn 7449 M (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas : राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee, Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.12.2017, 27.12.2018 & 24.10.2019

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM

M/S Vijayeta Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 980/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2020AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 40A(3)

153C cannot be interpreted to be a further innings for the AO and/or assessee beyond provisions of Sections 139 (return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that

Nimbus Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(1)

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

ITA 3846/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3846/Mum/2017 & 3847/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिधम/ Nimbus Communications The Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (A)-4 Vs. Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Mumbai, Andheri (W), Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400053. Now: The Acit, Range- 16(1), Mumbai स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn3947L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2006-07 & 2007-08. Ita. No. 3846/M/2017 2. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 13.02.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2006-07. Ita No. 3846 & 3847/M/2017 A.Y.2006-07 & 2007-08 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

filed its return of income on 28.11.2016 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.1,07,99,899/-. Thereafter, the assessee has filed the revised return of income on 29.03.2008 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.3,34,36,493/- under the normal provisions

M/S Mantri Developers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 525/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15 M/S Mantri Developers Private Limited, #41, Mantri House, Dcit Circle – 4 (1) (2), Vittal Malya Road, Vs. Bengaluru Bangalore – 560001 Pan : Aaacg4009N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shree V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shree Muzaffar Hussain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2020 O R D E R Per Arun Kumar Garodia, A. M.: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit (A) – 4 Bengaluru Dated 30.11.2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shree V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shree Muzaffar Hussain, CIT DR
Section 234Section 36

assessee requested to the AO to exclude it from taxable income but since, this request of the assessee was without filing valid revised return of income, the AO did not accept it by following the Judgment of Hon’ble apex court rendered in the case of Goetze (India ... upon the powers of CIT (A) and tribunal to decide the claim on merit in respect of claim made by the assessee without filing revised return. He submitted that this issue should be restored to CIT (A) for a decision on merit. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders

Arti Devi Chand, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 53(5), New Delhi

ITA 158/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Satyeh Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 50C

Thus, the assessee wanted to avoid taxation. In valuation report property is described as immovable property. The assessee has not filed any revised return to claim the above capital loss. The A.O. found that 5 ITA.No.158/Del./2020 Smt. Arti Devi Chand, New Delhi. the property in question is residential

Sanjeev Malhotra, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi

ITA 6723/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Justice P. P. Bhatt & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Though Video Conferencing) Through Video Conferencing Shri Sanjeev Malhotra Dcit, Vs. 10/81, Punjabi Bag West Circle-24(2), New Delhi- 110026 New Delhi Pan Aagpm3216Q

For Appellant: Shri Ajay WadhwaFor Respondent: Shri H K Chaudhary
Section 147Section 148Section 68

return of income on 31/7/2009 declaring income of ₹ 4,149,840/–. Assessee revised its return of income on 29/9/2009 declaring the same income. The revised return was not filed electronically but was deposited manually with the AO – Circle 9 (1) New Delhi. The case was processed ... gain in the return of income filed for the assessment year 2009 – 10, neither in the original return ( filed on 31/7/2009) nor in the revised return (filed on 29.09.2009). No balance sheet was enclosed with these returns to reflect any investment in shares. The case was not selected for scrutiny

M/S. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2299/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2007-08 Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.5, Sector-41 (Kasna), Circle-12(1), Greater Noida Industrial New Delhi. Development Area, Gautam Budh Nagar Pan: Aaach8464L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate Ms Shaily Gupta, Ca & Ms Mrinal Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sunit Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14Th February 2014 Passed U/S 263 By The Cit, Delhi-4, Delhi, For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Portable Generating Sets, Ic Engines, Water Pumping Sets & Manufacture & Processing Of Pressure Die-Casting Parts. It Filed It'S Return Of Income On 27Th October 2007 Declaring Nil Income. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed A Revised Return On 29Th October 2007 Declaring Total Income At Rs.31,49,18,923/-. The Ao Passed The Order Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C Of The Act On 24Th October 2011, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.44,78,49,680/- Wherein He Made Addition Of Rs.13,29,30,660/- Under Various Heads Such As Royalty, Technical Guidance, Expert Commission & On Account Of Tp Adjustment.

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sunit Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 263Section 43B

pressure die-casting parts. It filed it's return of income on 27th October 2007 declaring Nil income. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 29th October 2007 declaring total income at Rs.31,49,18,923/-. The AO passed the order under section 143(3) read with section 144C ... assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 144C on 24th October 2011, determining the total income at Rs.44,78,49,600/- as against the revised returned income of Rs.31,49,18,923/-. We find the ld. CIT held the order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

Basf India Ltd ( Basf Coatings India P.Ld Now Amalgamated With Basf India Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 761/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey (Jm) & Shri N.K. Pradhan (Am) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Basf India Limited (Basf The Dy. Comm. Of Income Tax- Coatings India Pvt. Ltd., 6(1), (Now Amalgamated With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, India Ltd.), Vs. M.K. Marg, Vibgyor Towers, Unit No. 101, Mumbai 1St Floor, G Block, C-62, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan : Aabcb2364G (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Basf India Ltd. (Into Which The Dy. Cit - 6(1), Basf Polyureth India Ltd. Is Aayakar Bhavan, Amalgamated), M.K. Karve Road, Vibgyor Towers, Unit No. 101, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 1St Floor, G Block, C-62, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan : Aaccb5918E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Heena Doshi (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/10/2020

For Appellant: Ms. Heena Doshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (DR)
Section 143

India Ltd., however, the assessee has not taken consequential steps, such as, surrendering the old PAN No. and applying new PAN no., not filed revised return of income with new PAN, no information was submitted whether ROC was intimated the fact of amalgamation and revised financial statements were filed. Further

Indukuri Syam Prasad Reddy, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 646/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blesmt Indukuri Sundari V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aakpi8049P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Indukuri Syam Prasad Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aadpi1621C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Mohammad Afzal Assessee By Department By : Shri M.V.S.T. Sai

For Respondent: Shri M.V.S.T. Sai
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

153A/153C of the Act for the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year in which search was conducted. The assessee has filed revised returns in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act and admitted the additional income disclosed during the course of search. The case has been selected

Indukuri Sundari, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 645/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blesmt Indukuri Sundari V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aakpi8049P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Indukuri Syam Prasad Reddy V. Dcit – Central Circle - 2(1) Plot No. 973/A, Road No. 49 Aayakar Bhavan Hyderabad Jubilee Hills Hyderabad – 500 033 Pan: Aadpi1621C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Mohammad Afzal Assessee By Department By : Shri M.V.S.T. Sai

For Respondent: Shri M.V.S.T. Sai
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

153A/153C of the Act for the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year in which search was conducted. The assessee has filed revised returns in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act and admitted the additional income disclosed during the course of search. The case has been selected

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Medi Assist (India)

In the result, the third

ITA/593/2013HC Karnataka21 Oct 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(2)Section 260Section 260A

holders to the insurance company. The assessee filed its return of income on 5 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.9,20,45,514/- and revised return on 30.09.2009 declaring an income of Rs.2,82,19,530/-. The return of income was processed under Section