← 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

Niit Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

ITA 6779/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 32Section 37(1)

return of income for assessment year 2012-13 on 30.11.2012 showing total income of Rs. 1,45,41,52,677/-. The assessee filed revised return on 31.03.2014 showing total income of Rs. 1,45,51,19,445/-. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income

Niit Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

ITA 6778/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

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

Section 32Section 37(1)

return of income for assessment year 2012-13 on 30.11.2012 showing total income of Rs. 1,45,41,52,677/-. The assessee filed revised return on 31.03.2014 showing total income of Rs. 1,45,51,19,445/-. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad

ITA 466/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80Section 80l

section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at Rs.27,39,42,60,300/- in the original as well as revised return, which was assessed at Rs.29,43,31,78,083/- u/s 143 (3) of the Act. Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee company

M/S Nhpc Ltd., Faridabad vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 297/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 80Section 80l

section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at Rs.27,39,42,60,300/- in the original as well as revised return, which was assessed at Rs.29,43,31,78,083/- u/s 143 (3) of the Act. Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee company

M/S. Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2671/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143Section 92C

being such a big, reputed company of a global group. The DR further pointed out that the assessee had further opportunity by filing a revised return but again failed to claim it by filing revised return. The DR continued by stating that the assessee further failed to claim depreciation before

M/S. Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 90/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143Section 92C

being such a big, reputed company of a global group. The DR further pointed out that the assessee had further opportunity by filing a revised return but again failed to claim it by filing revised return. The DR continued by stating that the assessee further failed to claim depreciation before

Anil Nagendra, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Year 2013-14 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3209/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-14 Shri. Anil Nagendra, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of C-1303, Mantri Greens, Income Tax, Sampige Road, Malleshwaram, Circle - 5(3)(1), Bengaluru – 560 003. Hmt Bhavan, Pan : Aagpn 6294 H Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 90

Hewlett – Packard Globalsoft Pvt. Ltd. For Assessment Year 2013-14, the assessee filed a return of income on 23.07.2013 and then filed a revised return of income on 27.03.2015 declaring income of Rs.1,34,12,530/- under the heads Page 2 of 6 salary, income from house property, capital gains

Synopsys International Ltd, Ireland vs. The Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1565/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P Boazit(It)A No.1565/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Synopsis International Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Block 1, Blanchardstown, Income Tax, Corporate Park, Blanchardstown, Circle - 2(1), International Taxation, Dublin 15, Ireland. Rastrothana Bhavan, 14/3, 6Th Floor, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore – 560 001. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

engaged in the business of granting software licenses, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 28.09.2012 declaring NIL income. A revised return was filed on 29.11.2012 IT(IT)A No. 1565/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 11 wherein the income declared was NIL. The case was selected

ACIT, Sikar vs. Sikar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd., Sikar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 171/JPR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2019AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Anil Kaushik (CA)For Respondent: Shri Raj Mehra (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

does not in any way relate to the power of the assessing officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited

Sri Mishri Promotors, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Cir-5(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3262/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. R.Clement Ramesh
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

authorities below. It is not disputed that assessee had withdrawn the claim of weighted deduction u/s.35(1) (ii) of the Act through a revised return. Or in other words, assessee had not insisted on weighted deduction :- 4 -: ₹ ₹ of 1,31,25,000/ - for the donation ... HHBRF. Assessment was completed based on the revised return filed by the assessee. Question of any addition for commission paid on the donation against which the weighted deduction was originally claimed, in our opinion becomes irrelevant, once such deduction was withdrawn by the assessee, through a revised return which

Asb International P.Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

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

ITA 7282/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Sridharan Sr Advocate with Ms. Neha Sharma AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 92C

Moulds, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 27.11.2012 declaring total income at Rs. 25,68,76,640/-. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed declaring the same income. During the assessment the assessing officer noted that in the Form No. 3CEB the assessee

Star Internaitonal Movies Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (It) 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1637/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Channel V Music Networks Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax(International Limited Taxation)- 2(1)(1) Partnership V. Scindia House, C/O Star India Private Ltd., Mumbai- 400038 Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaefc6136H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri. Pavan K Beerla (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 92C

Appellant at INR 8,96,44,590 instead of loss of INR 19,78,03,073 as determined by the Appellant in its revised return of income. Ground number 2 erred in not giving effect to the directions of the Ld. DRP which are binding

Channel Music Networks Ltd Partnership, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1519/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Channel V Music Networks Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax(International Limited Taxation)- 2(1)(1) Partnership V. Scindia House, C/O Star India Private Ltd., Mumbai- 400038 Star House, Urmi Estate, 95, Ganpat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan :Aaefc6136H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri. Pavan K Beerla (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253Section 92C

Appellant at INR 8,96,44,590 instead of loss of INR 19,78,03,073 as determined by the Appellant in its revised return of income. Ground number 2 erred in not giving effect to the directions of the Ld. DRP which are binding

M/S Southern Hills Developers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1246/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

real estate development and filed the Return of Income electronically for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 7.09.2010 with total income NIL. Subsequently, filed Revised Return with loss of Rs.3,54,81,014 and the Return of Income was processed under Section 143(1) and Notice under Section ... were issued. The Assessing Officer found irregularities in the Revised Return filed. On verification made addition of unexplained income from projects and also disallowed financial charges, other expenses and assessed the total income of Rs.4,10,57,956 and passed the order under Section 143(3) Dt.26.3.2013. Aggrieved

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Atlas Copco (India) Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 426/PUN/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.426/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

penalty by the AO is the claim made by the assessee for reduction in sale price of shares by Rs. 7.50 crore lodged in revised return thereby reducing the amount of capital gain already shown from the transfer of shares in the original return. Pursuant to the sale of shares ... later year when the assessment proceedings for the current year were going 5 Atlas Copco (India) Limited on, the assessee filed a revised return claiming reduction in capital gain in the year under consideration. The AO did not allow claim. It is a matter of record that such deduction

M/S. Honeywell Automation India Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 287/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.412/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Jcit, Range-7, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.568/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aaact3904F आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Shri Rhea Amar Revenue By : Shri A. K. Modi सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. The Appeals In Ita No.412/Pun/2014 & Ita No.568/Pun/2014 Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal In Ita No.287/Pun/2015 Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Said Cross Appeals Relating To The Assessment Year 2009-10 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney &For Respondent: Shri A. K. Modi
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 1OSection 253Section 80I

assessing the total income at Rs 1,39,19,22,100 as against income of Rs 81,32,90,469 (as per the revised return of income filed by the Appellant on 19 August 2010); B. amounting to Rs. 25,91,52,428 with respect to Software Technology Parks

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Honeywell Automation India Ltd., Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 568/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.412/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Jcit, Range-7, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.568/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aaact3904F आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Shri Rhea Amar Revenue By : Shri A. K. Modi सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. The Appeals In Ita No.412/Pun/2014 & Ita No.568/Pun/2014 Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal In Ita No.287/Pun/2015 Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Said Cross Appeals Relating To The Assessment Year 2009-10 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney &For Respondent: Shri A. K. Modi
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 1OSection 253Section 80I

assessing the total income at Rs 1,39,19,22,100 as against income of Rs 81,32,90,469 (as per the revised return of income filed by the Appellant on 19 August 2010); B. amounting to Rs. 25,91,52,428 with respect to Software Technology Parks

M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 412/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.412/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Jcit, Range-7, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.568/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aaact3904F आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Shri Rhea Amar Revenue By : Shri A. K. Modi सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. The Appeals In Ita No.412/Pun/2014 & Ita No.568/Pun/2014 Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal In Ita No.287/Pun/2015 Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Said Cross Appeals Relating To The Assessment Year 2009-10 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney &For Respondent: Shri A. K. Modi
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 1OSection 253Section 80I

assessing the total income at Rs 1,39,19,22,100 as against income of Rs 81,32,90,469 (as per the revised return of income filed by the Appellant on 19 August 2010); B. amounting to Rs. 25,91,52,428 with respect to Software Technology Parks

ITO, Corp Ward 6(3), Chennai vs. Sical Iron Ore Terminals Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 638/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.638/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Sical Iron Ore Terminals Ltd., Corporate Ward 6(3), Vs. No. 73, South India House, Aayakar Bhavan, New Block, Armenian Street, 7Th Floor, 121, M. G. Road, Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aakcs5773M] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 14A

No.638/M/19 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 08.09.2011 and revised return on 05.11.2011 and 28.08.2012 admitting a loss of ₹.3,09,25,602/-. The Assessing Officer completed scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s

The Archdiocesan Board of Education, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 585/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. The Archdiocesan The Deputy Board Of Education, Commissioner Of Archbishop’S House, No. 75 Income Tax Vs. Millers Road, Benson Town, (Exemptions), Bangalore – 560 046. Circle – 1, Pan: Aabat5296P Bangalore. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

completed. However, assessment order in the instant case was passed on 27/3/1997 and another notice under Section 148 was issued on 24/11/1994 and a revised return was filed on 31/3/1995. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the second notice dated 24/11/94 is barred by limitation since ... that agricultural income is not included since the same was being worked out and was to be furnished at the time of filing a revised return. Though the said document is dated 24.10.1992, it has not been filed in the Income Tax Office. In the absence of there being