← 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

Shri Anil Suri, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 127/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 127/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Anil Suri, Dcit, Circle 1(1), बनाम H.No.699, Sector 11-B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Amcps9331C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 250(6)Section 56

assessee explained as under:- “Reply dated 24.10.2016 The perusal of the above comparative chart reveals that there is fall in income in the revised return of income to the tune of Rs. 15,65,416/- under the head income from salaries. The reason for the fall is that, during ... assessee had not taken the benefit of section 10(10A) in the original return of income. As such revised return of income was filed and the benefit of the same section was availed by the assessee. The assessed during the F.Y. 2013-14 had exercised the option of withdrawing

The ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry vs. The Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6/VIZ/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar – AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy – CIT DR
Section 263Section 32

income for the A.Y. 2008-09 on 13/09/2009 declaring gross total income (loss) of Rs. 5,82,80,040/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 26/09/2009 revising the total income (loss) to Rs. 23,83,95,220/-. The assessee further revised the return of income by filing ... revised return of income at the fag end of the assessment year which was not considered by the Assessing Officer. As per second revised return of income loss was revised to Rs. 24,27,14,762/- which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. 33.1. The assessee did not chose

The ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry vs. The Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5/VIZ/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar – AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy – CIT DR
Section 263Section 32

income for the A.Y. 2008-09 on 13/09/2009 declaring gross total income (loss) of Rs. 5,82,80,040/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 26/09/2009 revising the total income (loss) to Rs. 23,83,95,220/-. The assessee further revised the return of income by filing ... revised return of income at the fag end of the assessment year which was not considered by the Assessing Officer. As per second revised return of income loss was revised to Rs. 24,27,14,762/- which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. 33.1. The assessee did not chose

The ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry vs. The Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4/VIZ/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Shiv Kumar – AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy – CIT DR
Section 263Section 32

income for the A.Y. 2008-09 on 13/09/2009 declaring gross total income (loss) of Rs. 5,82,80,040/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 26/09/2009 revising the total income (loss) to Rs. 23,83,95,220/-. The assessee further revised the return of income by filing ... revised return of income at the fag end of the assessment year which was not considered by the Assessing Officer. As per second revised return of income loss was revised to Rs. 24,27,14,762/- which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. 33.1. The assessee did not chose

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu -1, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5713/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 10ASection 115JSection 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

declared book profit of ` 40,32,25,37,283, under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, on 30th March 2011, the assessee filed a revised return of income enhancing the claim of TDS from ` 139,10,63,978, to ` 160,10,63,978. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer

DCIT Cir 3, Mumbai vs. Seqent Scientific Ltd, Thane

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4438/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K.Pradhan

For Appellant: Nitin Waghmode, Sr. ARFor Respondent: H.P. Mahajani & Nikita Goyal
Section 101BSection 10BSection 115JSection 35

income on 15.10.2010 declaring total income of `.72,4,080/– after claiming deduction under section 10B of the Act. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 30.3.2012 declaring total income of `. 8,99,11,494/– under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit ... Assessing Officer noticed that inventories to the extent of `. 14,40,81,661/– were written off in the 10 M/s Sequnet Scientific Ltd. revised return of income. After considering the explanation of the assessee that it represents obsolete stock of the amalgamating company and rejecting it, the Assessing Officer disallowed

M/S Dcm Shriiram Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5221/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 5221 & 5222/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Dcm Shriram Ltd., 5Th Floor, Kanchenjunga Building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. …...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaacd0097R Vs Dcit, Circle-7(1), …………. ू"यथ" / Respondent C.R.Building, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 154Section 240

interest due to the assessee was withheld. Another refund was determined by the second intimation issued dated 13.10.2007, after the assessee had filed revised return of income on 13.10.2007. The total refund due was Rs.8,20,15,357/- comprising of Rs.8,16,64,925/- determined vide order dated ... case of the assessee, the date of intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, for the original return of income and for the revised return of income and the date of issue of refund is different. The assessee had raised its claim before the authorities below and the claim

R Systems International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 690/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 115JSection 154Section 234B

submitted that by the original return filed on 24.09.2008, deduction of Rs. 22,56,55,798/- was claimed u/s 10A of the Act. By revised return filed on 22.09.2009, deduction u/s 10A of Rs. 25,61,48,875/- was claimed. Deduction u/s 10A was claimed in respect of four undertaking ... deduction under Section 10A, the Ld. AR admitted that there is mistake in figures pertaining to one undertaking. The Ld. AR submitted that by revised return filed on 22.09.2009, deduction u/s 10A of Rs. 25,61,48,875/- was claimed. Deduction u/s 10A was claimed in respect of four undertaking

M/S Dcm Shriiram Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5222/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Dr. B.R.R.Kumarआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 5221 & 5222/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Dcm Shriram Ltd., 5Th Floor, Kanchenjunga Building, 18, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. …...........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aaacd0097R Vs Dcit, Circle-7(1), …………. ू"यथ" / Respondent C.R.Building, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 154Section 240

interest due to the assessee was withheld. Another refund was determined by the second intimation issued dated 13.10.2007, after the assessee had filed revised return of income on 13.10.2007. The total refund due was Rs.8,20,15,357/- comprising of Rs.8,16,64,925/- determined vide order dated ... case of the assessee, the date of intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, for the original return of income and for the revised return of income and the date of issue of refund is different. The assessee had raised its claim before the authorities below and the claim

Smt Usha Kapoor, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1336/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Raovk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1336/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years : 2009-2010 Cuke Smt. Usha Kapoor The Ito Vs. L/H Late Shri Som Prakash Kapoor Ward- 6(4) 4/266, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Adipk 4486 D Vihykfkhz@ Appellant Izr;Fkhz@ Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishekh Sharma , Addl. CIT- DR
Section 139Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

fact that in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the legal heir of the assessee (i.e. wife) herself filed the revised return of income at Rs. 5,87,520/- which includes the unexplained income of the assessee. As the assessee had died, the legal heir being

DCIT - CC - 1(1), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Commodities Services Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 5587/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ravi Kanth Pathak,ARFor Respondent: Mr. R. Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 143(3)

filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 29.11.2012 declaring total income of Rs.35,43,40,796/-. Subsequently, it filed a revised return on 31.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.32,38,18,010/-. The assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of trading, settlement

M/S. Subham, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(4), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 402/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

declaring total income of Rs.19,03,485/-. Subsequently assessee on 13.02.2016 revised its return of income declaring total income of Rs.5,50,420/-. The revised return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and consequently assessment was framed ... erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in rejecting the total income of Rs.5,50,4201- declared by the assessee as per the revised return filed u/s 139(5) and assessing he total income at Rs.19,03,485/- as per the original return filed u/s 139(1) without appreciating

Shri Ramprasad Gurunathan, Chennai vs. ITO, International Taxation, Ward - I (1), Chennai

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

ITA 1342/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1342/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Ramprasad Gurunathan, The Income Tax Officer 15, Old No. 8A, Vs. [International Taxation], Vidyodaya Main Road, T. Nagar, Ward 1(1), Bsnl Building, Chennai 600 017. 16, Greams Road, [Pan: Ahopg4986A] Chennai 600 006. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Shri V. Nagaprasad अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sailendra Mamidi, Pcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai Dated 26.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Short Term Capital Gains On Sale Of Long Term Capital Asset Instead Of Computing Long Term Capital Gains As Well As Rejecting Cost Of Improvement On The Property.

For Respondent: Shri Sailendra Mamidi, PCIT

admitting a total income of ₹.2,69,990/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. Later the assessee has filed a revised return on 30.09.2016 admitting revised total income of ₹.4,63,42,590/- with a tax payable of ₹.1,08,35,610/-. Against statutory notices, the assessee filed

Blue Star Ltd., Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1941/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri N.S. Jangpangi – Ld. DR
Section 263

original assessment for year under consideration was framed by Ld. AO on 30/03/2016 wherein the loss was determined at Rs.44.76 Crores as against revised returned loss of Rs.48.52 Crores e-filed by the assessee on 31/03/2015. The book losses u/s 115JB were filed at Rs.12.53 Crores. It is apparent from ... surcharge and therefore, the same was erroneously allowed. Thirdly, the assessee claimed deduction of provision for doubtful debt amounting to Rs.416.76 Lacs in the revised return of income which was erroneously allowed. Fourthly, the assessee, in revised return of income, claimed excise duty exemption of Rs.31.28 Crores as capital receipts

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. T.V. Vision Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5862/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodassistant Commissinoer Of M/S Tv Vision Ltd. Income Tax-16(1), 4Th Floor, Adhirai Chambers, R. No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan, Oberoi Complex, Vs. M.K. Marg, New Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.RFor Respondent: Ms. Indra G. Anand, A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vi)

filed its return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 29.09.2013, declaring its total income at Nil. Subsequently, the assessee had filed a revised return of income on 18.03.2014 declaring its income at Nil. Return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such under Sec.143

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Exide Life Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 1961/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Years : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri T Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 10Section 44

Copy of which is at page 366 of the assesee’s paper book. Though the claim was not made in return of income or revised return. Similarly in asst. year 2009-10 also claim was made before the AO in letter dated 22/3/2013. Copy of which is at page ... actual valuation surplus u/s 44. It is admitted that no claim in this regard has been made by way of a return or revised return of income. The claim was made in the course of submissions in the assessment proceedings and has not been considered in the draft assessment order

ITO -WD- 3(4), Kalyan vs. Srushti Enterprises, Dombivali

ITA 5103/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S.Srushti Enterprises, Income Tax Officer, B-8, Tridev Chs Ltd., Vs. Ward-3(4), Rh-84, Midc, Kalyan (W) Dombivali (E) Mumbai [Pan : Ablfs0060L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. P.Daniel, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Bhoopathi, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 44A

sales tax dues of the suppliers who defaulted in the payment of VAT : 3 : C.O.No. 220/Mum/2019 and were absconding and hence filed a revised return. The assessee submitted before the AO that it had sold the materials purchased from the alleged bogus suppliers to its customers and therefore there cannot

Sai Global Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 14(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2389/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Sai Global Ltd., Income Tax Officer 14(3)(3), 11/12, Swastik Disa Mumbai, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Vs. Business Park, Behind, Road, Mumbai-400020. Vadhani Industrial Estate, L.B.S. Marg, Opp. Damodar Park, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aaacq0580A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas Bhat, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

erred in confirming the disallowance of the foreign exchange loss of Rs.77,63,177/- instead of Rs.75,01,304/- reversed by the revised return, thereby disallowing Rs.2,61,873/-without giving any opportunity to give explanation. 2. The AO erred in not appreciating the fact that;- a. The assessee ... expenditure. In response to it, the assessee vide letter dated 09.08.2016 submitted : “As per disallowance in previous assessment year scrutiny we already filed the revised return for AY 2014-15 on 21.11.2015 revising the Foreign Exchange Fluctuation loss of Rs.75,01,304/-“ M/s Sai Global Ltd. 3 The AO observed

Dsp Merrill Lynch Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT Circle-4(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

ITA 2845/MUM/2002[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2845/Mum/2002 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1996-97) Dsp Merrill Lynch Limited Jcit-Special Range-22 Ground Floor, A Wing Mumbai बनाम/ One Bkc, G Block Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 05 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-0535-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi- Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar- Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 01/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar- Ld. DR
Section 80

finding that no such claim was made in the original return of income which was processed u/s 143(1)(a) on 24/11/1997 and no revised return was filed, the claim could not be entertained at the stage of assessment proceedings. It was also noted that the payee DSP & CO. reflected

Bhimrao Arjunrao Bhakare, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2160/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gandhale
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 11.11.2011 declaring a total income of Rs.1,91,320/-. Subsequently, on same day assessee filed revised return of income revising the total income at Rs.1,62,970/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, assessment was framed