← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Chetan R. Shah (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5781/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri G. Manjunathadcit,Cc-6(3) Vs. M/S Chetan R.Shah (Huf) Room No.1926, 19Th Floor 702, Marathon Max, Air India Building Kailash Bunglow Nariman Point Lala Devidayal Road Mumbai-400 021 Mulund(West) Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No.Aaahc9579E Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133A

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

DCIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Charak Pharma P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7117/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Charak Pharma Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 6(2)(1) 21, Evergreen Industrial Estate R.No. 563, Aayakar Bhavan Shakti Mill Lane, Opp. Dr. E. Moses Road Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 011 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcc4014A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ronak G. Doshi & Ms. Niyanta Mehta Department By : Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. Doshi &For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 72A

Similarly, Hon'ble Kolkata IT AT in the case of NLC Nalco India Limited v/s DCIT (2015(10) TMI 2236) held that "revised return reflecting the consolidated result of the amalgamated entity was filed beyond the permissible time limit u/s 139(5) of the Act, was due to the fact

Sh. Tajender Kakkar, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2748/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11

only) and issued 3 post dated cheques of Rs.14,00,000/- each. It is further noticed that said Shri Tajender Kakkar has not filed revised return of income disclosing undisclosed income of Rs.1,40,00,000/- and all the post dated cheques are not honoured by his bank. Said Shri ... just Rs.2,52,790/- only and issued 3 post dated cheques of Rs.14,00,000/- each, but later on failed to file any revised return of income disclosing undisclosed income of Rs.1,40,00,000/- and all the post dated cheques were also not honoured by his bank. This fact

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S Endeka Ceramics Pvt. Ltd

In the result, the revisions are allowed

ITA/69/2014HC Karnataka09 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 22(1)Section 23(1)

Form No.4 under the Act for the Assessment Years. Since, there were mistakes in the annual returns in Form No.4, therefore, petitioner filed revised returns in Form No.4. The particulars of which are reproduced below for the facility of reference: Assessment Year Date of Filing Form 4 Date of filing ... deemed assessment order under Section 12C(8) of the Act in terms of Notification No.FD 116 CSL 2006(3) dated 31.03.2006 without considering the revised return filed by the petitioner which was filed before the deemed acceptance of the annual returns. Since, the order passed by the Assessing Officer suffered

M/S. Veetee Fine Foods Ltd., Haryana vs. ITO (TDS), Rohtak

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4941/DEL/2015[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2020

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4941/Del/2015 (A.Y 2010-11) M/S. Veetee Fine Foods Ltd., Vs Ito(Tds) 56-57 Km Mile Stone, Rohtak. G. T. Karnal Road, Larsauli, Sonepat -131 001 (Pan : Aaacp 0658 C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Saroj Agarwal, C.A. Ms. Sonia Rani, C.A. Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr. D.R.

Section 139ASection 200Section 27Section 272Section 272B

time and there is no default on part of the assessee. In fact, in case of ‘186 deductees’ correct PAN was given in the revised return. 8. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer as well as order of the CIT(A). 9. We have heard

Mansh Pannalal Bagdia, Jalna vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalna

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

ITA 1210/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1210/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manish Pannalal Bagdia, Bagadia Palace, Rajendra Prasad Road, Jalna-431203 Pan :Ahopb0111E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Akshay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 14A

incorporated in the books of account and excess stock of Rs.42,571/- had remained to be offered to tax. Thereafter, revised return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,54,98,950/- was filed on 30.03.2013. In the revised return of income, the assessee sought to exclude excess stock ... bales of cotton were unaccounted and he offered excess stock of Rs.26,35,350/- to tax. This amount was not included in the revised return of the income and had been retracted by the assessee. Thus, 216 bales of cotton had been inventorized at Khadkeshwar Ginning & Pressing and 216 bales

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 45/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

pursuance to the same the assessee filed his return of income on 16.02.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.5,82,279/- and revised return was filed on 21.11.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.6,45,586/-. Similarly, the assessee in pursuance to notice u/s.153A of the Act filed his return of income ... assessment year 2011-2012 on 16.02.2017 disclosing his total income at Rs.7,11,720/- and revised return was filed on 21.11.2017 declaring total income at Rs.7,91,720/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has disclosed additional income of Rs.1,00,000/- under

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 44/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

pursuance to the same the assessee filed his return of income on 16.02.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.5,82,279/- and revised return was filed on 21.11.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.6,45,586/-. Similarly, the assessee in pursuance to notice u/s.153A of the Act filed his return of income ... assessment year 2011-2012 on 16.02.2017 disclosing his total income at Rs.7,11,720/- and revised return was filed on 21.11.2017 declaring total income at Rs.7,91,720/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has disclosed additional income of Rs.1,00,000/- under

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 43/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

pursuance to the same the assessee filed his return of income on 16.02.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.5,82,279/- and revised return was filed on 21.11.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.6,45,586/-. Similarly, the assessee in pursuance to notice u/s.153A of the Act filed his return of income ... assessment year 2011-2012 on 16.02.2017 disclosing his total income at Rs.7,11,720/- and revised return was filed on 21.11.2017 declaring total income at Rs.7,91,720/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has disclosed additional income of Rs.1,00,000/- under

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 42/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

pursuance to the same the assessee filed his return of income on 16.02.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.5,82,279/- and revised return was filed on 21.11.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.6,45,586/-. Similarly, the assessee in pursuance to notice u/s.153A of the Act filed his return of income ... assessment year 2011-2012 on 16.02.2017 disclosing his total income at Rs.7,11,720/- and revised return was filed on 21.11.2017 declaring total income at Rs.7,91,720/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has disclosed additional income of Rs.1,00,000/- under

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 41/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

pursuance to the same the assessee filed his return of income on 16.02.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.5,82,279/- and revised return was filed on 21.11.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.6,45,586/-. Similarly, the assessee in pursuance to notice u/s.153A of the Act filed his return of income ... assessment year 2011-2012 on 16.02.2017 disclosing his total income at Rs.7,11,720/- and revised return was filed on 21.11.2017 declaring total income at Rs.7,91,720/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has disclosed additional income of Rs.1,00,000/- under

Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Cuttack

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 40/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.40 To 45/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Ays. :2010-2011 To 2015-2016) Dr. Subash Chandra Jena, Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Cuttack Plot No.5/52, Gajapati Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. : Abrpj 2247 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, I.E. One Dated 11.12.2018 For The Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 & Other Dated 28.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-2013 To 2015-2016. 2. First We Shall Take Up Appeals Of The Assessee For Assessment Years 2010-2011 & 2011-2012 In Ita Nos.40 & 41/Ctk/2019, Wherein The Sole Issue Involved Is With Regard To Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Working In Government Of Odisha As A Doctor & Also Engaged In Private Practice

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

pursuance to the same the assessee filed his return of income on 16.02.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.5,82,279/- and revised return was filed on 21.11.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.6,45,586/-. Similarly, the assessee in pursuance to notice u/s.153A of the Act filed his return of income ... assessment year 2011-2012 on 16.02.2017 disclosing his total income at Rs.7,11,720/- and revised return was filed on 21.11.2017 declaring total income at Rs.7,91,720/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has disclosed additional income of Rs.1,00,000/- under

Shri Gurappa P Gawali, Bijapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bijapur

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

ITA 647/BANG/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2020AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran(Smc) Ita No.647(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2002-03) Shri Late Gurappa P Gawali Rep. By Legal Heir Gurappa Parasappa Gawali, Shahapur Gate, Gawali Galli, Bijapur-586 101. Pan No.Aadhg8984N Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bijapur-586101 Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel To Deptt. Date Of Hearing : 06-11-2019 Date Of Pronouncement : O R D E R Per Shri B.R.Baskaran,Am

For Appellant: Shri Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 54B

assessee also declared sale consideration at Rs.34.60 lakhs and accordingly computed capital loss. Subsequently, the assessee-HUF filed revised return of income declaring capital gain as ‘nil’, after claiming deduction u/s 54B of the IT Act, 1961. The deduction u/s 54B of the Act is allowed against the capital gains ... noticed earlier. We noticed earlier that the assessee had originally declared capital loss of Rs.27.30 lakhs, due to some computational error. However, in the revised return of income, the assessee-HUF herein has declared capital gains as nil, after claiming deduction

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Info Edge India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 2968/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Info Edge India Ltd, Circle-12(1), Gf-12A, 94, Meghdoot New Delhi Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan: Aaaci1838D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 143Section 145Section 14ASection 37

services in India. 4. It filed its return of income on 29/9/2012 declaring income of ₹ 1579187820/– as per the normal computation. It filed a revised return on 31/3/2014 declaring an income of Rs. 1572900160/-. The assessment under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act [ The Act] was passed ... submitted detailed working of the disallowance and stated that assessee has disallowed a sum of Rs. 6418148/– at the time of filing of the revised return which was earlier disallowed to the extent of ₹ 12665812/- in the original return. The AO noted that assessee in the original return has disallowed

ACIT, Karnal vs. M/S. Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Panipat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2572/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 271A

Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) also decided in assessee's favour in which the surrendered amount was disclosed in the revised return filed with taxes paid thereon. Thus without much elaboration, respectfully following the cited orders of the higher judicial forum, the penalty levied

Dhl Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 767/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Shamim Yahya, Am & Sri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 767/Mum/2018 (यनर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Bipin B. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32

only reason for which the Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim of depreciation on goodwill is the claim has not been made through revised return of income. Undisputedly, the Assessing Officer has not disputed assessee’s claim of depreciation on other fixed assets which were ... supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not restrict the jurisdiction of appellate authority to entertain a claim not made by way of revised return of income. Thus, if we read the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in conjunction with ratio laid down

Asst. Comm. of Income Tax - 11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tpl Plastech Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6206/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6206/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-11-(3)(1) M/S. Tpl Plastech Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.204, 2Nd Floor 10-11, Shivali Indl. Estate Aaykar Bhavan Andheri(E) Vs. M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai -400 072. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-1968-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Joshi – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Mayura Pratap-Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/12/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mayura Pratap-Ld.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

supra), by a notice dated 6/2/2013, the Revenue sought to reopen the assessment in the year 2007-08. The Assessee filed a revised return of income and sought for reasons recorded in support of the notice dated 6.2.2013. The reasons were furnished only on 19.3.2015. The Assessee lodged objections

Asst CIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aeco India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7547/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhasstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 1(1)(1) 579, Aayakar Bhawan ……………. Appellant M.K.Road Mumbai- 400 020 V/S

For Appellant: Shri. M.M.Golvala / Shri AmeyFor Respondent: Shri. Anand Mohan
Section 139(1)Section 40Section 92A(2)

issue of disallowance of expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,25,31,547. 4. The Assessing Officer noted that while filing the revised return, the assessee has made various adjustments to the amount of income declared vide original return. That one of the adjustments relates to claim for expenses ... Services Fee Income Rs.30,06,152 6. In this regard the Assessing Officer referred to assessee’s note in the revised return as under:- “The assessee is a low risk service support provider to its Foreign Associate Enterprise. This activity continued till 3T' December, 2010. From January 2011 the assessee

DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. M/S Swan Gold Mining Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4839/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4839/Del/2016 (A.Y 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S. Swan Gold Mining Ltd., Tax (International Taxation), India Project Office (Formerly Circle – 3(1)(2), Known As Monarch Gold New Delhi. Mining Co. Ltd.) Kb-25, 9Th Floor, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake, Kolkata-98. (Pan : Aafcm 1718 D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 40

assessee company filed its return of income on 29.09.2013 declaring nil income and claiming refund of Rs.60,76,850/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 31.03.2014 declaring nil income and claiming refund of Rs.65,76,850/-. The Assessing Officer on notional basis in his assessment order held that

Essar Ports Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1831/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Essar Ports Ltd. Dcit, 5(1)(2) (Formerly Known As Essar Shipping Ports & Logistics Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, 11, K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 034

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, cit D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 14ASection 92C

r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act at Rs.22,61,57,130/- as against Rs.5,88,38,525/- declared in the revised return of income. 3. The Assessing Officer has erred in law and on facts in refusing to admit and act upon the revised return of income filed ... filed its return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 10.10.2010, declaring a total income at Rs.10,21,73,631/-. Subsequently, a revised return of income was e-filed by the assessee on 30.03.2012, declaring a total income at Rs.5,88,38,525/-. The return of income filed