← 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

M/S Chandrika Investments, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1454/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 154Section 24ASection 288B

return of income in response to notice u/s. 142(1) dated 17.3.2010 declaring total income of Rs.3,42,45,991. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 31.3.2010 declaring total income of Rs.1,27,50,047. An order of assessment dated 17.10.2011 was passed by the ITO, Ward ... giving effect to the order of the Tribunal dated 23.9.2016 in which he determined the total income of the assessee as per the revised return of income @ Rs.1,27,50,050. By virtue of this order, a refund became payable to the Assessee as per the following calculations

JCIT, (OSD), Circle - 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Isg Traders Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1610/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

completed vide order dated 30.03.2013 determining the total loss of Rs.73,30,08,230/- against the returned loss as per the revised return amounting to Rs.74,33,47,643/-. Subsequently, revision proceedings were initiated by the Pr. CIT-2 Kolkata u/s. 263 of the Act on the following issues

Natasha Melwani, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 443/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं. 1067/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2012-13) Navzer J. Irani, 142, Ashoka Apartments, 68, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006 Pan: Aaapi0625H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Opp. Bhatia Hospital, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 034 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 443/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2012-13) Natasha Melwani, 142, Ashoka Apartments, 68, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006 Pan: Aaapi5937J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Opp. Bhatia Hospital, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 034 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistri, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain & Ms. Kavita Kaushik
Section 143(3)Section 54E

original return of income declared his share of income from sale of aforesaid property as long term capital gain. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income and claimed exemption on sale proceeds of land, claiming it to be agricultural land. In scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer rejected assessee ... income for assessment year 2012-13 offered his share from sale of aforesaid property as ‘long term capital gain’. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income wherein the share in structure/building was offered as long term capital gain. Whereas, exemption was claimed on share in consideration received for sale

Navzer J. Irani, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 1067/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarआअसं. 1067/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2012-13) Navzer J. Irani, 142, Ashoka Apartments, 68, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006 Pan: Aaapi0625H ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Opp. Bhatia Hospital, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 034 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 443/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2012-13) Natasha Melwani, 142, Ashoka Apartments, 68, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai 400 006 Pan: Aaapi5937J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Opp. Bhatia Hospital, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 034 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistri, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain & Ms. Kavita Kaushik
Section 143(3)Section 54E

original return of income declared his share of income from sale of aforesaid property as long term capital gain. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income and claimed exemption on sale proceeds of land, claiming it to be agricultural land. In scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer rejected assessee ... income for assessment year 2012-13 offered his share from sale of aforesaid property as ‘long term capital gain’. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income wherein the share in structure/building was offered as long term capital gain. Whereas, exemption was claimed on share in consideration received for sale

Shri. Prakash Ramachandra Prabhu, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1253/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B.R.Baskaranshri Prakash Ramachandra Prabhu, No.308, 7Th Main, Hal #Rd Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 075. Pan No.Aajpp5078N Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Bangalore Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, R. AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R.Premi, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 245Section 264

return of income in the original return of income. The assessee could have corrected the same by filing revised return of income, which was not done. Hence there is no mistake in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the Act. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. M/S. K V Mohana Rao and Co Privite Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 539/VIZ/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.U.Mini Chandran, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 148

case in brief are that assessee filed its return of income by admitting total income of Rs. 23,82,54,770/-. Subsequently revised return is filed on 18/04/2014 admitting total C.O.No. 151/VIZ/2019 (M/s. K.V. Mohana Rao and Co. Pvt. Ltd.) income of Rs. 21,82,34,890/-. In the revised ... return assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 2,00,19,879/- paid towards interest on service tax. The revised return filed by the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/sec. 143(3) of the Act, dated 24/03/2016 by making addition of Rs. 42,13,819/- towards disallowance

Kilari Venkata Rosaiah, Guntur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 608/VIZ/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Jun 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.608/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2011-12) Kilari Venkata Rosaiah Vs Asst. Commissioner Of D.No.25-16-180 Income Tax G.T.Road, Amc Yard Circle-1(1) Guntur Guntur [Pan : Adspk7598L] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2020

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Ravi Shankar Narayan
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

Academy that rent of Rs.19,05,900/- was paid to various persons including the assessee. The mistake was rectified subsequently by filing e-revised returns. After considering the reply of the assessee, the AO dropped the issue and no addition was made relating to the rents. Since

Kailash Narayan Renuse, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5 (1), Pune

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

ITA 251/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 44A

submit case laws before the Assessing Officer and further section 44AD statutory ambit does not speak regarding filing of return of income on filing revised return and therefore, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh consideration

M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 742/IND/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jun 2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

Singh (HUF) vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Himachal Pradesh). Where no inquiry was conducted by Assessing Officer in passing assessment order after accepting revised return filed by assessee. Commissioner was well within his power under section 263 to direct fresh assessment. In view of the detailed reasons given

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Sova Ispat Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2520/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) &Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 263

facts as observed by the AO are that the assessee company filed its return of income on 04.10.2010 declaring total income of Nil. Subsequently Revised return was filed by the assessee on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,72,665/- and claimed deduction in the computation of taxable ... Industrial Promotion Assistance ( in short, ‘IPA’). According to AO, in the original return the assessee treated it as revenue receipt but in the revised return the assessee changed tact and claimed deduction of this amount in the computation of taxable income treating it as capital receipt. According AO, the assessee

DCIT/ACIT, Ltu-1, Kolkata vs. M/S. United Bank of India, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas the cross-objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 806/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, Ltu-1, Kolkata........................................................................................Appellant 6Th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. M/S. United Bank Of India……………………………………………………............................Respondent 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aaacu 5624 P] C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 806/Kol/2017) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. United Bank Of India…………………………………………………….......................Cross-Objector 16, Old Court House Street, Dalhousie, Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Aaacu 5624 P] D.C.I.T./A.C.I.T, Ltu-1, Kolkata....................................................................................Respondent 6Th Floor, Kendriya Utpad Shulk Bhawan, 180, Shantipally, Rajdanga Main Road, Kolkata – 700 107. Appearances By: Shri I. Jamir, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 17, Kolkata Dated 22.12.2016 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 47/Kol/2017. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In Its Appeal Read As Under:

Section 115JSection 1ISection 2(5)Section 211

dated 27.06.2016 in which the AO stated that assessee has not claimed the said expenses either in the original or in the revised return and submitted that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. 284 ITR 323 and Gurjargravurs

Windsor Machines Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 3, Thane

ITA 4696/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2709/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4696/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2710/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4697/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Windsor Machines Ltd. Dcit-Circle-3 Room No.2, “B” Wing, 6Th Floor बनाम/ 102/103, Devmilan Chs Next To Tip Top Plaza Vs. Ashar I.T. Park, Road No.16Z Lbs Road, Thane-(W)-400 604. Wagle Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-4302-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) : Assessee By : S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi & Shri Akhilesh Pevekar – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ : 07/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तारीख/ : 28/05/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi &For Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 154

Recovery) in this regard but the same remained to be dealt with by DIT(Recovery) till date. Since the date of filing the revised return for AY 2011-12 expired on 31/03/2013, the assessee thought it appropriate to claim the deduction of these items while filing return

Windsor Machines Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 3, Thane

ITA 2710/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2709/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4696/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2710/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4697/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Windsor Machines Ltd. Dcit-Circle-3 Room No.2, “B” Wing, 6Th Floor बनाम/ 102/103, Devmilan Chs Next To Tip Top Plaza Vs. Ashar I.T. Park, Road No.16Z Lbs Road, Thane-(W)-400 604. Wagle Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-4302-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) : Assessee By : S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi & Shri Akhilesh Pevekar – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ : 07/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तारीख/ : 28/05/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi &For Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 154

Recovery) in this regard but the same remained to be dealt with by DIT(Recovery) till date. Since the date of filing the revised return for AY 2011-12 expired on 31/03/2013, the assessee thought it appropriate to claim the deduction of these items while filing return

Windsor Machines Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 3, Thane

ITA 4697/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2709/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4696/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2710/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4697/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Windsor Machines Ltd. Dcit-Circle-3 Room No.2, “B” Wing, 6Th Floor बनाम/ 102/103, Devmilan Chs Next To Tip Top Plaza Vs. Ashar I.T. Park, Road No.16Z Lbs Road, Thane-(W)-400 604. Wagle Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-4302-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) : Assessee By : S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi & Shri Akhilesh Pevekar – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ : 07/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तारीख/ : 28/05/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi &For Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 154

Recovery) in this regard but the same remained to be dealt with by DIT(Recovery) till date. Since the date of filing the revised return for AY 2011-12 expired on 31/03/2013, the assessee thought it appropriate to claim the deduction of these items while filing return

Windsor Machines Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - Circle 3, Thane

ITA 2709/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2709/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4696/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2710/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.4697/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Windsor Machines Ltd. Dcit-Circle-3 Room No.2, “B” Wing, 6Th Floor बनाम/ 102/103, Devmilan Chs Next To Tip Top Plaza Vs. Ashar I.T. Park, Road No.16Z Lbs Road, Thane-(W)-400 604. Wagle Estate, Thane (W)-400 604. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-4302-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) : Assessee By : S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi & Shri Akhilesh Pevekar – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/ : 07/01/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाक"तारीख/ : 28/05/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradip N. Kapasi &For Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha – Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 154

Recovery) in this regard but the same remained to be dealt with by DIT(Recovery) till date. Since the date of filing the revised return for AY 2011-12 expired on 31/03/2013, the assessee thought it appropriate to claim the deduction of these items while filing return

DCIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata vs. M/S. Emc Limited, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2149/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14A

legal and factual position realised that company’s real income was much less than the revenue booked in the account and hence, revised return was filed on 17.03.2016 claiming deduction of the retention money debited by the parties during the year amounting to Rs.142,53,74,710/-. It was also ... when the assessee realised that its real income was much less than the revenue booked in the account it filed a revised return on 17.03.2016 claiming deduction of the retention money which was deducted by the parties to the tune of 3 I.T.A. No. 498/Kol/2018 & 2149/Kol/2017 M/s. EMC. Ltd., Assessment

DCIT 7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterrises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1799/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1799/Mum/2016 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Piramal Enterprises Limited Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), (Formerly Known As Piramal Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, Healthcare Limited) बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacn4538P आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 850/Mum/2015 (यनर्ाािण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Piramal Enterprises Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Piramal Income-Tax, Range-7(3)(2), Healthcare Limited) Room No. 669A, 6 Th Floor, बनाम/ Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 013 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओि से / Appellant By : Shri A Mohan, Cit Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओि से / Respondent By : Shri Jehangir D. Mistri, Madhur Agrawal, Ronak Doshi, Ars’ सुनवाई की िािीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.03.2020 घोर्णा की िािीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2020

For Appellant: Shri A Mohan, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Jehangir D. Mistri
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

under section 10(15) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer rejected such claim on the reasoning that it was not made through a revised return of income. Learned ... learned Dispute Resolution Panel have rejected assessee’s claim on a purely technical reason that assessee has not claimed such exemption by filing revised return of income. In our view, if an item of income is not taxable under the provisions of the Act and cannot form part

Ardor in-Fin Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1121/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ardor-In-Fin P Ltd Ito, Ward-7(3) Ardor House, Vs Ahmedabad. Mondeal Business Park B/S.Gurudwara Thalej, S.G. Road Ahmedabad 380 059. Pan : Aagca 2925 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ankit Talsania Revenue By : Shri Lalit P.Jain, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ankit TalsaniaFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P.Jain, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 14A

will come done from the income which has been admitted by the assessee in its return of income. The assessee has not filed any revised return, and therefore, it is not entitled for this relief. The CIT(A) in the case of Greeland Infracon (supra) has allowed this plea ... assessee and granting relief on the issues not raised at the time of filing original return of income or by way of revised return at a subsequent stage is justified in law or not. 7. The first issue framed above appears quite simple as we see. While adjudicating the issue

ACIT, Circle - 13(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Padma Logistics & Khanij Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 606/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 2

within the relevant assessment year 2010-11. Pursuant to the scheme of merger approved by the Hon'ble High Courts, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 09-06-2011 showing income of Rs. Nil after getting approval of AGM of assessee company. Subsequently, the case was selected ... High courts did not clear the demerger (supra), the impact of demerger and merger of ‘Vortal’ division to assessee company by way of revised return could not be filed within the due date allowed by statute, yet the revised return taking into consideration the impact of demerger and assessee acquiring

Apex Tubes Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 3(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7852/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi & Sa No. 67/Del/2020 (In Ita No. 7852/Del/2019) (Assessment Year: 2007-08 Apex Tubes Pvt Ltd, Vs. Ito, 1/6-3, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi Ward-3(1), Pan: Aaaca2867N New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115WSection 154

field return on account of clerical mistake on their part. The mistake was not rectified by it by filing a revised return within the due time. Thus, there being no mistake in processing by the Department. The learned assessing officer held that there is no mistake apparent from record warranting