← 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3)., Hyderabad vs. Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1385/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

claimed in the returns of income originally filed u/s. 139(1). The claim for deduction was introduced for the first time by the revised returns filed in response to Notice u/s.153A. The details are as under: AY Claim u/s 80IA ... made even in the return filed on 14/02/2013 in response to notice u/s.153A dt. 05/12/2012. This claim was made in the course of a 'revised return' filed on 06/02/2014. He also noticed that the notice u/s. 153A called for the return to be filed by 09/01/2013 whereas it was filed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3)., Hyderabad vs. Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1384/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

claimed in the returns of income originally filed u/s. 139(1). The claim for deduction was introduced for the first time by the revised returns filed in response to Notice u/s.153A. The details are as under: AY Claim u/s 80IA ... made even in the return filed on 14/02/2013 in response to notice u/s.153A dt. 05/12/2012. This claim was made in the course of a 'revised return' filed on 06/02/2014. He also noticed that the notice u/s. 153A called for the return to be filed by 09/01/2013 whereas it was filed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3)., Hyderabad vs. Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1383/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

claimed in the returns of income originally filed u/s. 139(1). The claim for deduction was introduced for the first time by the revised returns filed in response to Notice u/s.153A. The details are as under: AY Claim u/s 80IA ... made even in the return filed on 14/02/2013 in response to notice u/s.153A dt. 05/12/2012. This claim was made in the course of a 'revised return' filed on 06/02/2014. He also noticed that the notice u/s. 153A called for the return to be filed by 09/01/2013 whereas it was filed

Dy. Commsioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3)., Hyderabad vs. Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited., Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1382/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

claimed in the returns of income originally filed u/s. 139(1). The claim for deduction was introduced for the first time by the revised returns filed in response to Notice u/s.153A. The details are as under: AY Claim u/s 80IA ... made even in the return filed on 14/02/2013 in response to notice u/s.153A dt. 05/12/2012. This claim was made in the course of a 'revised return' filed on 06/02/2014. He also noticed that the notice u/s. 153A called for the return to be filed by 09/01/2013 whereas it was filed

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1136/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

claimed in the returns of income originally filed u/s. 139(1). The claim for deduction was introduced for the first time by the revised returns filed in response to Notice u/s.153A. The details are as under: AY Claim u/s 80IA ... made even in the return filed on 14/02/2013 in response to notice u/s.153A dt. 05/12/2012. This claim was made in the course of a 'revised return' filed on 06/02/2014. He also noticed that the notice u/s. 153A called for the return to be filed by 09/01/2013 whereas it was filed

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1135/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

claimed in the returns of income originally filed u/s. 139(1). The claim for deduction was introduced for the first time by the revised returns filed in response to Notice u/s.153A. The details are as under: AY Claim u/s 80IA ... made even in the return filed on 14/02/2013 in response to notice u/s.153A dt. 05/12/2012. This claim was made in the course of a 'revised return' filed on 06/02/2014. He also noticed that the notice u/s. 153A called for the return to be filed by 09/01/2013 whereas it was filed

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1134/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

claimed in the returns of income originally filed u/s. 139(1). The claim for deduction was introduced for the first time by the revised returns filed in response to Notice u/s.153A. The details are as under: AY Claim u/s 80IA ... made even in the return filed on 14/02/2013 in response to notice u/s.153A dt. 05/12/2012. This claim was made in the course of a 'revised return' filed on 06/02/2014. He also noticed that the notice u/s. 153A called for the return to be filed by 09/01/2013 whereas it was filed

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1133/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

claimed in the returns of income originally filed u/s. 139(1). The claim for deduction was introduced for the first time by the revised returns filed in response to Notice u/s.153A. The details are as under: AY Claim u/s 80IA ... made even in the return filed on 14/02/2013 in response to notice u/s.153A dt. 05/12/2012. This claim was made in the course of a 'revised return' filed on 06/02/2014. He also noticed that the notice u/s. 153A called for the return to be filed by 09/01/2013 whereas it was filed

Asr Enginering & Projects Limited (Formerly Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Limited), Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1132/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

claimed in the returns of income originally filed u/s. 139(1). The claim for deduction was introduced for the first time by the revised returns filed in response to Notice u/s.153A. The details are as under: AY Claim u/s 80IA ... made even in the return filed on 14/02/2013 in response to notice u/s.153A dt. 05/12/2012. This claim was made in the course of a 'revised return' filed on 06/02/2014. He also noticed that the notice u/s. 153A called for the return to be filed by 09/01/2013 whereas it was filed

M/S Jokhiram Durgadutt, Ranchi vs. DCIT Circle-1, Rnc

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 47/RAN/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Aug 2019

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.47/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Jokhiram Durgadutt, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi Sarawgi House, J.J.Road, Upper Bazar, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabfj 2200 Q (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्धाऩिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.S.Paul, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri P.S.Paul, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mondal, Addl.CIT(DR)

India) Ltd. v CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) which held that appellant-assessee cannot make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return.” On careful perusal of the above observations of the CIT(A), we do not see any good reason to interfere with the findings recorded

Conwood Reality Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 3830/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma () & Shri Pawan Singh () Conwood Reality Pvt Ltd Vs The Dy.Cit-12(1)(2), Mumbai Yashodham, D.B. House Gen A.K. Vaidya Marg Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400 063 Pan :Aadc2510Q Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 249Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

development, filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 on 30-10-2013 declaring total income at a LOSS OF Rs.17.59 crores. Subsequently revised return was filed on 31-03-2015 revising the total loss to Rs.3.68 crores. The return of income was selected for scrutiny. The AO, after

Plaza Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, 10(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2863/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh Ay 2013-14 Ay 2014-15

Section 14A

submits that assessee is entitled to make a legal claim by way of additional ground of appeal during the first appellate stage without filing revised return of income as per decision of Bombay High Court in case of Prithvi Stock Broker & Shareholders Ltd 23 Taxmann.com 23 (Bom). On merit ... Court in Prithvi Stock Broker & Shareholders Ltd (supra) held that though the AO is not entitled to accept the revised computation in absence of revised return. However, this power is not restricted to the appellate authority. Considering the decision of Bombay High Court in Prithvi Stock Broker & Shareholders Ltd (supra

Morarjee Realities Ltd. (Now Known As Peninsula Land Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T. Circle 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2135/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushilkumar Poddar
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45

case of Goetze India Ltd. vs CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC) denied the claim as it was not made by filing a revised return of income for instant year and even complete details of such expenditure were not furnished. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing ... claim of the assessee ought to be considered by the CIT(A) even though it was not made by way of a revised return. 19. On the other hand, the Ld. DR has defended the stand of the lower authorities by reiterating the reasoning contained in the respective orders, which

M/S. Abc Engineering Works, Vijayawada vs. The Dy. CIT, Vijayawada

ITA 75/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

Section 143(1)

business of civil contract works, filed it’s return of income declaring total income of Rs. Nil on 30.09.2008. Subsequently, filed the revised return of income admitting taxable income of Rs.1,34,26,464/- on 29.10.2008. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and the case was taken ... that the AO had only estimated the income on business and did not include Rs.2,61,21,106/- admitted by the assessee in the revised return on account of interest on partners capital accounts. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that rectification u/s 154 is permitted, if there is a mistake

The ACIT, Vijayawada vs. M/S. Abc Engineering Works, Vijayawada

ITA 445/VIZ/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

Section 143(1)

business of civil contract works, filed it’s return of income declaring total income of Rs. Nil on 30.09.2008. Subsequently, filed the revised return of income admitting taxable income of Rs.1,34,26,464/- on 29.10.2008. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and the case was taken ... that the AO had only estimated the income on business and did not include Rs.2,61,21,106/- admitted by the assessee in the revised return on account of interest on partners capital accounts. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that rectification u/s 154 is permitted, if there is a mistake

The ACIT, Vijayawada vs. M/S. Abc Engineering Works, Vijayawada

ITA 442/VIZ/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

Section 143(1)

business of civil contract works, filed it’s return of income declaring total income of Rs. Nil on 30.09.2008. Subsequently, filed the revised return of income admitting taxable income of Rs.1,34,26,464/- on 29.10.2008. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and the case was taken ... that the AO had only estimated the income on business and did not include Rs.2,61,21,106/- admitted by the assessee in the revised return on account of interest on partners capital accounts. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that rectification u/s 154 is permitted, if there is a mistake

The ACIT, Vijayawada vs. M/S. Abc Engineering Workers, Vijayawada

ITA 235/VIZ/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

Section 143(1)

business of civil contract works, filed it’s return of income declaring total income of Rs. Nil on 30.09.2008. Subsequently, filed the revised return of income admitting taxable income of Rs.1,34,26,464/- on 29.10.2008. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and the case was taken ... that the AO had only estimated the income on business and did not include Rs.2,61,21,106/- admitted by the assessee in the revised return on account of interest on partners capital accounts. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that rectification u/s 154 is permitted, if there is a mistake

M/S Abc Engineering Works, Vijayawada vs. The DCIT, Vijayawada

ITA 210/VIZ/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Vs. M/S Abc Engineering Works Vijayawada Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.79/Viz/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.112/Viz/2013) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar, Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 210/Viz/2015 & 75/Viz/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2012-13) M/S Abc Engineering Works Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle-2(1) Plot No.24, 2Nd Road Vijayawada Autonagar , Vijayawada [Pan : Aaffa7383K] Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1) Vijayawada (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)

Section 143(1)

business of civil contract works, filed it’s return of income declaring total income of Rs. Nil on 30.09.2008. Subsequently, filed the revised return of income admitting taxable income of Rs.1,34,26,464/- on 29.10.2008. The return was processed u/s 143(1) and the case was taken ... that the AO had only estimated the income on business and did not include Rs.2,61,21,106/- admitted by the assessee in the revised return on account of interest on partners capital accounts. The Ld.CIT(A) further observed that rectification u/s 154 is permitted, if there is a mistake

Indusind Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2588/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2588/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) बनधम/ M/S. Indusind Bank Ltd Pr. Chief Commissioner Of 8Th Floor, Tower No.1, Income-Tax-2 Vs. Room No.344, 3Rd Floor, One India Bulls Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020. Elphistone Road, Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci1314G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Karthik Natarajan (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013-14 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.11.2013 Declaring Total Income To The Tune Of Rs.1556,56,31,880/- For The A.Y. 2013-14. Thereafter, The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 28.12.2016 Assessing The Total Income To The Tune Of Rs.1725,96,68,536/-. On Verification, It Was Found That The Order Dated 28.12.2016 Was Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Requires Revision. The Notice Was Issued To The Assessee On The Following Grounds: - “On Examination Of The Records It Is Seen That Deduction To The Tune Of Rs.3,22,50,564/- Has Been Allowed To The Assessee U/S 35D Of The I.T. Act, 1961. However, It Was Noticed That The Said

For Appellant: Shri Karthik Natarajan (AR)For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35D

report2016-17 dated 27.06.2016 in which the AO stated that assessee has not claimed the said expenses either in the original or in the revised return and submitted that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Marathon Fiscal Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5783/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandeputy Commissioner Of Income M/S Marathan Fiscal Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle-6(3), Marathan House, Room No. 1926, 19Th Floor, Lala Devi Dayal Road, Air India Building, Vs. Mulund (West), Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400080 Mumbai – 400021

For Appellant: Shri Manjunath Swami &For Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra, A.R
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

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 the course of survey and the Assessing Officer is simply harping upon