← 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

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exeption) -Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4283/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

assessee had filed its original return of income on 31.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.4,04,890/-. Subsequently on 07.09.2015, the assessee filed a revised return of income, declaring NIL income. Before the AO, the assessee pleaded that since it has surrendered its registration u/s.12A

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-Circle 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4282/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

assessee had filed its original return of income on 31.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.4,04,890/-. Subsequently on 07.09.2015, the assessee filed a revised return of income, declaring NIL income. Before the AO, the assessee pleaded that since it has surrendered its registration

Tata Education Trust, Mumbai vs. ACIT-17(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 4156/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w Shri Sukhsagar & Shri Atul SuraiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)Section 234B

assessee had filed its original return of income on 31.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.4,04,890/-. Subsequently on 07.09.2015, the assessee filed a revised return of income, declaring NIL income. Before the AO, the assessee pleaded that since it has surrendered its registration u/s.12A

Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

sale of shares was claimed to be carried forward to subsequent years in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Subsequently, in the revised return filed on 03-02-2015, the assessee out of abundant precaution, withdrew the aforesaid claim of carry forward of long term capital loss on sale ... aforesaid loss was claimed to be carried forward to subsequent years in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The assessee filed a revised return wherein out of abundant precaution, the assessee withdrew the claim of carry forward of aforesaid LTCL. However, during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Apollo Industries Limited, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 407/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Assistant Commissioner Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, Block No.486,487, 488, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Mehsana Highway, Ahmedabad. Opp. Water Park, Dholasan, Mehsana-382732. [Pan :Aaacg7248 P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Bp Srivastava, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Mehul K Patel, Ar Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri BP Srivastava, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mehul K Patel, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36Section 37(1)

original return of income for the year under consideration on 19.10.2018, declaring total income of Rs.10,96,53,560/-. The assessee subsequently filed revised return on 20.10.2018 declaring total income at Rs.10,96,53,560/- and book profit under Section 115JB amounting to Rs.8,87,18,921/-. The Assessing Officer

Bajaj Housing Finance Limited, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Pune

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

ITA 1608/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Respondent: Appellant by Shri Nikhil Mutha
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(9)

Auditor. However, on noticing the mistake that had happened in the return and in view of the fact that the time limit for filing revised return has expired, the assessee voluntarily withdrew the excess claim of deduction u/s 32AC of the Act vide its letter dated 02.04.2019 wherein, clearly stating

Padmanaban Sukhumaran, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee towards the interest claimed u/s

ITA 950/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 234ASection 24Section 250

filing the appeal and proceeded to adjudicate the issue on merits. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed revised return of income on 21/07/2017 declaring gross total income at Rs. 83,48,789/- and claimed the deduction under Chapter ... gross total income shown is Rs. 99,53,285/- in the revised return of income. The assessee has claimed TDS of Rs. 27,78,701/- deducted by the employer company M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. Subsequently, statutory notices were issued to the assessee

Karnataka Water and Sanitation Pooled Fund Trust, Bangalore vs. Ddci(Exemption) Circle-17(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 879/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ravikiran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

claim. The learned CIT(A) also denied the claim. His view was that such a claim could have been made only by filing a revised return of income. Accordingly, he rejected the claim made before him. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The learned AR submitted ... wherein it was clarified that appellate authorities have wide powers to admit such claims even if they were not made in the revised return. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the revised claim on a technical ground. 5. The learned DR, on the other hand, supported

M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 221/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.04/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) (Arising Out Of Ita No.200/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.221/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 56

request but the same was not entertained in the assessment order. As per assessment order u/s 250: The appellant had not filed any revised return for this claim. The Hon'ble SC in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v CIT (2006) 284 IT 323 has held that the appellant ... assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. Accordingly, the ground of appeal is dismissed. Ground of appeal: While filing income tax return for the assessment year 2014-15 we have declared income from Bank interest of Rs.5,11,36,989 twice, under

DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 200/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.200/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Vs. M/S Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & Cross Objection.04/Ran/2019 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) (Arising Out Of Ita No.200/Ran/2018) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.221/Ran/2018 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jharkhand State Forest Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Development Corporation Ltd. H/O Bms Electricals, Near Hinoo Bridge, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand-834002 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcj 1402 H (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.P.Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 56

request but the same was not entertained in the assessment order. As per assessment order u/s 250: The appellant had not filed any revised return for this claim. The Hon'ble SC in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v CIT (2006) 284 IT 323 has held that the appellant ... assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. Accordingly, the ground of appeal is dismissed. Ground of appeal: While filing income tax return for the assessment year 2014-15 we have declared income from Bank interest of Rs.5,11,36,989 twice, under

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Snf India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

ITA 210/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.204/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited 19 Jnpc, Ramky Pharmacity Paravada, Visakhapatnam – 531021 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A] Vs. Dcit - Circle – 3(1) Income Tax Office Infinity Towers, Sankarmat Road Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.209 & 210/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Years:2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit - Circle – 3(1) 35,50-92-35, Sankaramatam Road Opposite Reliance Fresh, Beside Reliance Fresh, Nearby Main Road Madhuranagar, Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 Vs. M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited Plot No. 19 Ponnuru Village, Parawada Mandal Visakhapatnam – 531021 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A] करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ca Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) 01.09.2025 08.10.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

admitting a total income of Rs.1,15,84,090/- and it was subsequently, revised to Rs.(-)26,82,854/- vide revised return dated Page. No 2 29.03.2018. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Snf India Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

ITA 209/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon'Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.204/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year:2016-17) M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited 19 Jnpc, Ramky Pharmacity Paravada, Visakhapatnam – 531021 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A] Vs. Dcit - Circle – 3(1) Income Tax Office Infinity Towers, Sankarmat Road Visakhapatnam – 530016 Andhra Pradesh आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.209 & 210/Viz/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Years:2016-17 & 2014-15) Dcit - Circle – 3(1) 35,50-92-35, Sankaramatam Road Opposite Reliance Fresh, Beside Reliance Fresh, Nearby Main Road Madhuranagar, Dwarakanagar Visakhapatnam – 530016 Vs. M/S. Snf (India) Private Limited Plot No. 19 Ponnuru Village, Parawada Mandal Visakhapatnam – 531021 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aaacp4070A] करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाई समाप्त होने की तिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Shri Kanchan Kaushal, Ca Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr) 01.09.2025 08.10.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

admitting a total income of Rs.1,15,84,090/- and it was subsequently, revised to Rs.(-)26,82,854/- vide revised return dated Page. No 2 29.03.2018. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice under section 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Das, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 1454/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

income on 08-06-2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring a total income at Rs.92,85,050/-. The assessee filed its revised return of income on 19-10-2015 for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring a total income at Rs.1,05,94,050/-. Thus, the AO completed ... After giving the effect of the above order, the assessed income was reduced to Rs.1,05,94,050/- which was as declared in the revised return of income filed on 19.10.2015. Since, there was change in the return of income originally filed and thereafter subsequently declared at higher amount

Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Das, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 1453/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

income on 08-06-2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring a total income at Rs.92,85,050/-. The assessee filed its revised return of income on 19-10-2015 for the assessment year 2012-13 declaring a total income at Rs.1,05,94,050/-. Thus, the AO completed ... After giving the effect of the above order, the assessed income was reduced to Rs.1,05,94,050/- which was as declared in the revised return of income filed on 19.10.2015. Since, there was change in the return of income originally filed and thereafter subsequently declared at higher amount

Paramjeet Singh, Yamuna Nagar vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle (2), Chandigarh, DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-2

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 204/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 204/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Paramjeet Singh Dcit-Central Circle-2 बनाम/ (C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates) Sector-17 Sco No 823-24, Sector 22-A Chandigarh-160017 Vs. Chandigarh-160022 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Astps-8898-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhruv Goel(Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) -Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 26-09-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 153A Of The Act On 23-06-2021. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.82.18 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel(CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) -Ld. AR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

estimated assessee’s income at 25% on gross receipts of Rs.21.12 Crores. After adjusting the declared income by the assessee in the revised return of income, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.211.29 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A), vide para 6.9 of the impugned order, reduced the estimation to 18% which ... Rs.48.60 Lacs including business income of Rs.28.16 Lacs. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee agreed to offer additional income and filed revised return of income despite its claim that such additional income was never actually realized by them. The Ld. AO enhanced the declaration so made

ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. M/S Northern Royalty Company, Yamunanagar

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 730/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 730/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit-Central Circle 2 M/S Northern Royalty Company बनाम/ Vs. Cr Building Sector 17 603-604, Model Town, Santpura Road Chandigarh-160017 Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfn-9130-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co. No. 38/Chandi/2024 [In Ita No. 730/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Northern Royalty Company Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ 603-604, Model Town, Santpura Road Cr Building Sector 17 Vs. Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) Chandigarh-160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfn-9130-H (Cross-Objector) : (Respondent) Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 132Section 153C

estimated assessee’s income at 25% on gross receipts of Rs.36.78 Crores. After adjusting the declared profit by the assessee in the revised return of income, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.367.81 Lacs. The Ld. CIT(A), vide para 6.9 of the impugned order, reduced the estimation to 18% which ... Rs.48.60 Lacs including business income of Rs.28.16 Lacs. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee agreed to offer additional income and filed revised return of income despite its claim that such additional income was never actually realized by them. The Ld. AO enhanced the declaration so made

ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. Shri Karaj Singh, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the revenue’s appeal ITA No

ITA 726/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 726/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Central Circle 2 Shri Karaj Singh बनाम/ Cr Building Sector 17 H. No 1379, Modern Colony, Near Iti Vs. Chandigarh 160017 Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atups-5528-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. Co. No. 16/Chandi/2024 [In Ita No. 726/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Karaj Singh Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ H. No 1379, Modern Colony, Near Iti, Cr Building Sector 17 Vs. Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) Chandigarh 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Atups-5528-A (Cross-Objector) : (Respondent) Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel (Ca) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 26-09-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

other hand, controverted the arguments of Ld. CIT-DR and pleaded for acceptance of additional income as offered by the assessee in its revised return of income. The Ld. AR also advanced arguments on legal grounds. The written submissions have been filed along with paper-book and case laws which ... data found maintained in the name of M/s GM & Co. However, to put a quietus to the issue, the assessee-group filed revised return of income on 08-06-2021 by disclosing profit rate in the range of 14% to 15% in various entities as tabulated below: - (Figure

Suzlon Gujarat Wind Park Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 382/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastav, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(a)Section 251(2)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”), claiming refund of ₹10,92,78,473/- on account of TDS/TCS. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 25.05.2018 under section 139(5), in which it made an additional claim of TDS of ₹1,47,030/-. Out of this, TDS credit ... actual date of receipt of refund in its bank account. The Assessing Officer, however, computed the interest from the date of filing the revised return, i.e., 25.05.2018, until the date of issue of the refund instrument, holding that the delay attributable to the assessee due to the revised return

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 829/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.829 & 827/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), 1105, Ravivar Peth, Pune-411002 Cirlce – Pune Vs. Pan : Aaats5170R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assesseeby : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 Date Of 08-10-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 3

filed its original return of income on 30.09.2017 declaring total income at Rs.Nil, subsequently followed by filing of revised return on 06.03.2019 declaring Rs.Nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were accordingly

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune, Swargate vs. Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 827/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.829 & 827/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Dy. Commissioner Of Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions), 1105, Ravivar Peth, Pune-411002 Cirlce – Pune Vs. Pan : Aaats5170R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assesseeby : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 Date Of 08-10-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(b)Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 3

filed its original return of income on 30.09.2017 declaring total income at Rs.Nil, subsequently followed by filing of revised return on 06.03.2019 declaring Rs.Nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were accordingly