“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

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

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

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

Sujatha Atchutani, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1208/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2011-12 Sujatha Atchutani, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Abbpa 8757E Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri M. Naga Deepak Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mitra Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2019 O R D E R Per P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Shri M. Naga DeepakFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mitra

Section 143(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 54Section 5O

instead of STCG of Rs. 11,21,991/- offered in the return of income is not validated by a revised return. He, therefore, did not entertain the claim by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India

The DIT ( Exemption), Kochi vs. M/S.Indian Medical Association Cochin Branch, Cochin

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 507/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 30/03/2013. The assessee had also not filed its revised return in response to the notice issued u/s.148 of the I.T. Act. In our opinion, the donations received from various donors towards construction of building would always ... claim of the assessee only for the reason that the said claim was made by the assessee in the re- assessment proceedings without filing revised return. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 wherein the Supreme Court dismissed

The ADIT ( Exemption), Kochi vs. M/S.Indian Medical Association Cochin Branch, Cochin

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 327/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

United Arab Shipping Company Ltd.(Formerly Known As United Arab Shipping Company (S.A.G)), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)- 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7206/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri G. Manjunathaunited Arab Shipping Vs. Dcit(International Taxation)- Company Limited 4(3)(1) 16Th Floor, Room No.1611 [Formerly Known As United Arab Shipping Company (S.A.G.)] Air India Building Nariman Point C/O.Hapag-Lloyd India Mumbai-400 021 Private Limited 403/404, Satellite Gazebo, ‘A’ Wing, 4Th Floor Guru Hargovindji Marg Andheri(E) Mumbai-400 093 Pan/Gir No.Aaacu4043J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 139(5)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 44ASection 90(2)

operators, but taken under slot chartering/ feeder arrangements, which was inadvertently not claimed in the original return of income. The assesee could not filed revised return under the provision of section 139(5), because the original return was filed belatedly. The Ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee towards ... other operators, but taken under slot chartering/feeder arrangements mainly on the ground that any fresh claim can be made only by way of revised return of income, but not by filing revised statement of total income by following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Goetze

Kasturlal Sheth, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax-17(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 4463/MUM/2018[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4463 To 4466/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 1997-98 To 2001-02) बिधम/ Kasturlal Sheth Joint Commissioner Of 12, Shreyas, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax-17(2) Vs. Opposite, Air India Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagps7531Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Jotwani (Ar) Revenue By: Mrs. (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 1997-98 To 2001-02 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jotwani (AR)For Respondent: Mrs. (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

issued and assessment was completed on 23.02.2015. The assessee replied that he had paid taxes and filing the revised return of income. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to assessee to show cause as to why an amount of USD $10,000/- deposited by assessee in HSBC ... bank should not be taxed in the relevant assessment years. The assessee again filed the reply attaching the copy of revised return of ITA. No4463 to 4466/M/2018 A.Y. 1997-98 to 2001-02 income in which it was stated that the additional income in sum of Rs.3

M/S. the Malleshwaram Association, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2005/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate Standing Counsel to Dept

Rs.46.53 lakhs, admittedlyconsisting of rental and interest income. Subsequently, it revised its return, wherein the total income was declared at Rs.447/-. In the revised return of income, the assessee had set off the loss arising from club activities against the rental & interest income. Since income arising from club activities

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Raichur vs. M/S.Singdhanur Urban Co-Opewrative Bank Ltd., Bellary

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

ITA 2294/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 72A

opinion that since the assessee has not claimed such loss in the Return of Income filed on 7.9.2009 or by filing Revised Return. Hence Assessing Officer rejected the assessee's claim of complete loss in the assessment proceedings and passed order under Section 143(3) of the Act dt.30.11.2011. Aggrieved ... current year income irrespective of the fact that the assessee had neither claimed total loss in the Return of Income or by filing Revised Return of income and relied on the provisions of Section 72AB and 5 judicial decisions and prayed for allowing the revenue’s appeal. Contra, the learned

ITO (It) - 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepankar K. Khiwani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 6991/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer (I.T) – 3(1)(1) V. Deepankar K. Khiwani Room No. 1628 707-708, Everest Heights Air India Building Lake Homes, Powai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 076

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Harshad Vengurlekar

Section 139(4)Section 139(5)

erred in directing the A.O to give exemption (benefit of) Article 16(1) of the India-France DTAA despite upholding that revised return u/s 139(5) is not valid return as the original return was filed u/s 139(4) of the I.T Act" "2. Under the facts and circumstances

Spectra Solutions, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 22(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 473/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 473/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Spectra Solutions बिधम/ Ito Ward-22(3)(4) Room No.304, 4Th Floor, New Satguru Nanik Vs. Industrial Estate Gala No.1, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Jay Coach Naka, New Mumbai-400012. Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400053. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 35/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ Ito Ward-22(3)(4) M/S. Spectra Solutions Room No.304, 4Th Floor, New Satguru Nanik Vs. Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Industrial Estate Gala No.1, Mumbai-400012. Jay Coach Naka, New Western Express Highway, Goregaon (E), Mumbai- 400053. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanfm8588J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dinkle Hariya Revenue By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/11/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee As Well As Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Order Dated 13.10.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of

For Appellant: Shri Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69C

case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147/148 of the Act. In reply to the notice, the assessee has filed the revised return of income on 17.04.2014 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.3,88,977/-. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received

Sara Lee Ttk Ltd ( Now Amalgamated Into Godrej Consumer Products Ltd), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 10(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7760/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7760/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) Sara Lee Ttk Ltd. Addl. Cit-Range 10(2) (Now Amalgamated Into Godrej Aaykar Bhavan Consumer Products Ltd.) M.K.Road बनाम/ Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Mumbai-400 020. Vs. 3Rd Floor, Army & Navy Building 148, M.G. Road, Fort Mumbai-400 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaack-2416-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Shri Farrukh Irani- Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla - Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 25/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Farrukh Irani- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla - Ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

assessee in the final assessment order has been determined at Rs.724.42 Lacs after certain Transfer Pricing (TP) Adjustment of Rs.340.60 Lacs as against revised returned income of Rs.386.33 Lacs filed by the assessee on 20/01/2010. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under: - 1) The learned Dispute Resolution Panel

Premji Jivaraj Patel, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/VIZ/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.52/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2007-08) Sri Premji Jivraj Patel Vs. Income Tax Officer D.No.24-84-1/1 Ward-5(3) Kanthi Road Visakhapatnam Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaopp1330Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri B.Rama Krishna, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22 .11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Rama Krishna, DR

Section 143(2)Section 50CSection 54Section 54F

scrutiny and notices were issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1) and during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed the revised return of income on 24.02.2015 adopting the market value as on 30.09.2006 as per section 50C of the Act at Rs.13,44,500/- and arrived

Panchanan Jana, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, WD - 27(3), Purba Medinipur

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

ITA 373/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.373/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Panchanan Jana Vs. Ito, Ward-27(3), Haldia

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Shri Atin Das & Sugata Das, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 40A(3)

made by the A.O. on account of alleged difference between the proprietor’s capital account declared in the original return and the revised return pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12. 2. For that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in giving directions to the A.O. to reopen the assessments ... made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged difference between the proprietor’s capital account declared in the original return and revised return pertaining to A.Y. 2011- 12. 4. At the outset itself, the ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that this addition has already been

Acuity Holdings Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 4011/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 20th September 2012, declaring total income of ` 57,47,631. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 11th February 2014. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee had claimed deduction of ` 65.25 lakh towards

Icici Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 384/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson

Section 10Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 44

order and the same is reproduced below:- 43. Ground No.4 pertains to disallowance under section 14A offered in revised return on reasonable basis. Assessee offered an amount of Rs..1,44,377/- as against the dividend income mostly claimed at Rs.1,56,09,222/- arrived at in participating life insurance

Lotus Ornaments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 329/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TralshwalaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 10ASection 143(3)

consideration, the assessee filed its return of income originally on 30th September 2008, declaring total income of ` 43,01,420. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 12th April 2009, declaring total income of ` 50,37,160. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that

Sri Muguru Dundanayak Basavarju, Mysore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Mysore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2726/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Muguru Dundanayaka Basavaraju, The Income Tax # 149, Nayakara Street, Officer, Muguru Village, Vs. Ward – 1 [1], Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru. Mysuru District – 571 424. Pan: Bgqpb6811H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Revenue By Counsel For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2019

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 263Section 54F

merit even if no such claim was made in the return of income or even if no such claim was made by filing revised return of income. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of authorities below and placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered

M/S. Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants (I) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1648/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5584/Del/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2007-08 बनाम Jones Lang Lasalle Property Acit Vs. Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd. Circle 4(1), 1108-1110, Ashoka Estate, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Pan No. Aaacl2089B

DCIT/I.T.A. No. 1648/Del/2014/A.Y. 2009-10 Page 17 of 21 of the firm belief that the claim should have been made by a revised return of income. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Pvt. Limited ... authorities below. It is true that the claim of write off of bad debts was made during the assessment proceedings without filing a revised return of income. It is equally true that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Pvt. Limited

Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6465/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5584/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Coromandel International Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 673/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Coromandel Income-Tax, International Ltd., Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Secunderabad. Pan – Aaacc 7852 Appellant Respondent Revenue By: Smt. Esther N. Hangal Assessee By: Shri Ashish Mittal Date Of Hearing: 11/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish MittalFor Respondent: Smt. Esther N. Hangal

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)(a)Section 80I

return of income for the AY 2010-11 on 12/10/2010 declaring income of Rs. 452,05,02,116/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 30/03/2012 declaring income of Rs. 452,46,85,175/- on account of reduction in the claim made u/s 35(2AB) & 80IB