← 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

Karma Recruitments Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2082/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: The Cit(A) But Without Any Success. Learned Cit(A) Rejected The Claim Of The Assessee By Observing As Follows:-

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 239Section 239(1)(c)

than willing to even issue a notice under section 147 of the Act and calls upon the assessee to file a return or a revised return as the case may be and proceed to take further action under the Act. The test is if a return pursuant to the notice

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. S.D. Corporation P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is rejected

ITA 6395/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshdcit-3(3)(1) M/S S.D. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Admin Office, S.P. Centre, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 41/44, Minoo Desai Marg, Road, Mumbai-400020 Colaba, Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aadcs4496C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. Dr) Respondent By : Shri Dilip Lakhani (Sr. Advisor Of Deloite Haskins & Sell Llp) Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Satish Rajore (Sr. DR)For Respondent: Shri Dilip Lakhani (Sr. Advisor of Deloite Haskins and Sell LLP)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80ASection 80I

assessment, the Assessing Officer observed that initially the assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB (10) of Rs. 53,23,78,755/- whereas in the revised return the assessee claimed the deduction under section 80IB at Rs. 61,29,65,438/-. The Assessing Officer after issuing show cause notice that

ITO, Ward-10(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Bongu Janardhan Rao, Sec'Bad, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 914/HYD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bongu Janardhan Rao, Ward-10(1), Secunderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Ahcpb 5096 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri C.P. Ramaswamy Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai & Nilanjan Dey, Drs Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2019 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Sri C.P. RamaswamyFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai & Nilanjan
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 54F

Consequent to the survey in the business premises of M/s. Vermont Projects, conducted on 29/08/2011, the assessee filed revised return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,30,607/-. During the survey proceedings it was found that the assessee along with 10 others had entered into a development agreement ... offered the capital gains therefrom to tax in the original return of income. The A.O. observed that the assessee has filed the revised return of income on 02/12/2011 offering the capital gains to tax, but that is a belated one and that the assessee has also made a claim

Td Toll Road Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1646/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1646/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Td Toll Road Private Ltd., Dcit-15(3)(1) 361, 3Rd Floor, North Wing, Room No. 451, Reliance Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Santacruz (E), M.K Road, Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aacct6395C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Jitendra Sanghavi Revenue By: Shri. D.G. Pansari (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1646/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 31.01.2018, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal No. Cit(A)-24/Dcit-15(3)(1)/It-244/2016-17, For Assessment Year 2014-15, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By Assessee In Memo Of Appeal Filed With The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Tribunal”) Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. Jitendra SanghaviFor Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

record, as discussed hereinabove, the total income of the assessee is computed as under: Computation of Total Income Total Business Income (as per revised return) (12,26,25,952) Add: Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the Act 17,50,083 I.T.A. No.1646/Mum/2018 Short term capital Gain: 53,797 Total ... Assessed Income: (12,08,22,072) Tax @ 30%; NIL Computation of Total Income as per section 115JB Book Profit u/s. 115JB as per Revised Return 46,36,798/- Add: Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D of the Act 17,50,083/- Net Book Profit u/s. 115JB

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Van Oord India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 10/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.K Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri. Hiten ChandraFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil K Jha
Section 115V

assessment year under dispute assessee had originally filed its return of income 30.11.2011 declaring total income of `. 64,71,004/–. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return of income on 08.02.2013 claiming higher TDS credit. In the return of income assessee computed its profit from the dredging activity on presumptive basis

A.T. Kearney India Pvt. Ltd. (India Branch Office), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed in

ITA 2623/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 A.T. Kearney India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, (India Branch Office), Circle 1(1), 6Th Floor, Tower D, New Delhi. Vs Global Business Park, Gurgaon-122002 (Pan: Aadca1436G) Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. Ms Vrinda Tulsiyan, Adv. Department By: Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit Dr Ms Saweta Nakra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2019

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

ITA 2623/Del/2015 Assessment year 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI

Niko (Neco ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7452/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sunil K. Jha
Section 44C

dispute, the assessee filed its return of income originally on 30th September 2010 declaring loss of ` 593,05,17,684. Subsequently, it filed a revised return of income on 29th March 2012, declaring loss of ` 630,14,86,530. Since, during the year the assessee had entered into international transactions

Technocraft Industries (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1378/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh

issue arising for consideration in this appeal relates to allowance of assessee’s claim of additional depreciation. 15. Brief facts are, while verifying the revised return of income filed by the assessee in the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed additional depreciation. Thus

Ingram Micro India P.Ltd ( ( Now Known As Ingram Micro India Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT OSD-II Cen RG 7, Mumbai

ITA 8793/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K.Pradhaningram Micro India Private Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income- (Now Known As Ingram Micro India Ltd.), Tax, Osd Ii, Central Range-7, Gate No. 1A, Godrej Industries Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Complex, Pirojshanagar, Maharshi Karve Road, Vikroli (East), Mumbai- 400 079 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan – Aabcs9516P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153ASection 234A(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

High Court‟s of Bombay and Karnataka, the assessee company was amalgamated into Tech Pacific (India) Limited w.e.f 01.01.2005. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income for a period of 9 months ended 31.12.2004 on 14.10.2008, declaring its total income at Rs.12,36,75,606/-. 4. Search

Harmony Enterprises, Thane vs. ITO WD 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8483/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.8483 & 8484/Mum/2011 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S Harmony Enterprises Income Tax Oficer, Ward 2(1) 6, Guru Ashray, Katrap, Kalyan, Income Tax Officer, Chowk, Midc Road, Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, Vs. Badlapur (East), Kalyan, (West). Distt. Thane, 421503

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

filed its return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 06.10.2008, declaring income of Rs.4,81,510/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 30.07.2009 declaring its total income at Rs.4,81,170/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under

Vempati Srinivasa Subrahmanyam, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 231/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Vempati Srinivasa Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Subramanyam, Ward – 4(2)(1), Villa-04, Prestige Bougainvillea, Bangalore. No.59, Ecc Road, White Field, Bangalore – 560 06. Pan : Aclps 6643 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.06.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

dismissed the assessee’s appeal vide the impugned order dated 02.11.2018; holding that the claim of the assessee cannot be entertained as revised return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 was not filed by the assessee. In this context, the CIT(A) observed that it is well settled principle ... case of Goetze India Ltd., reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC), that ‘no claim could be made otherwise than by filing a revised return of income.’ 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A)-4, Bangalore, dated 02.11.2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee has preferred this appeal before

Ashraf Khan, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 2 (2), Indore

In the result Ground No.1 & 2 of the assessee are allowed

ITA 535/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

income Long Term Capital Gain of 2 Ashraf Kahn Rs.8,07,996/- was not offered to tax and it was subsequently shown in the revised return of income filed on 30.3.2013. The assessment was completed assessing income at Rs. 11,01,750/- after making addition for low house hold withdrawals ... Rs.50,000/- to the income as shown in the revised return at Rs.10,51,750/-. Ld. A.O initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income for not disclosing the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.8,07,996/- in the original return of income

M/S Bmw India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result ground number 7 – 12 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed accordingly

ITA 1163/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishibmw India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 7Th Floor, Tower-B, Building No. Circle-1(1), 8, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Aabcb7104C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 92BSection 92p

Assessee rose above claims before the ld AO by way of a letter during the course of assessment proceedings but not filing any revised return of income. Ld AO did not entertain it simultaneously DRP also did not entertain it . There for assessee is in appeal ... representative vehemently opposed the argument of the learned authorised representative and submitted that the assessee has failed to make any claim by filing the revised return, which is the only method for making a claim. As assessee has not made this, the learned assessing officer and the learned dispute resolution

ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi vs. National Petroleum Construction Company, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4771/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 4771/Del/2016 A.Y. 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 234B

read with section 144C(3) of the Act and made following additions to the year disclosed by the assessee in its revised return of income: 1) Addition in respect of offshore supply segment at Rs. 45,76,93,763/-; 2) Additions in respect of onshore service segment

M/S Ittina Properties Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1297/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S.Ittina Properties Pvt. Ltd. No.1054, 3Rd Block, 7Th Main Koramangala, Bengaluru-560034. Pan: Aaci 3805 Q … Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.Chandrashekar, Advocate. Respondent By : Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 15/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/06/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A) Dismissing The Assessee’S Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal. The Learned Ar Submitted That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Without Providing Adequate Opportunity & Also Narrated Facts In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay & Prayed That An Opportunity Be Granted To The Assessee To Reiterate The Submissions Made Before Lower Authorities With Page 2 Of 6 Substantive Evidences. Contra, Learned Dr Objected To The Submissions & Prayed That The Delay Is Inordinate & The Cit(A) Was Right In Dismissing The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 246ASection 40a

Limited is a Company form of organization, and for the impugned assessment year 2012-13, has derived income from Business. The Appellant/Petitioner filed its revised return of income on 29.08.2013 for the Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring Rs. 2,29,94,264/- as its total loss. For the record

DCIT, Cir.1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ardor in-Fin Private Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms above

ITA 2739/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2019AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 14A

facts in directing the AO to reduce the total income by Rs.52,59,412/- despite the fact that assessee did not file revised return of income.” 3. Learned representatives fairly agree, even as learned Departmental Representative dutifully relied upon the stand of the Assessing Officer, that the issue ... assessee and granting relief on the issues not raised at the time of filing original return of income or by way of revised return at a subsequent stage is justified in law or not. 7. The first issue framed above appears quite simple as we see. While adjudicating the issue

Ksb Pumps Limited(Heirinafter Referred to As 'the Appellant', Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu)- 2, Mumbai

ITA 2719/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos 2719 To 2722/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2006-07 To 2008-09) Ksb Limited) Assistant Commissioner Of (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Appellant’) Income Tax, 126, Makers Chambers Iii, (Large Tax Payers Unit)-2 Vs. Nariman Point Mumbai Mumbai – 400021

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia, Shri Nikhil Tiwari &For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 250(7)Section 253(1)(a)

return of income for A.Y. 2004-05 on 30.10.2004, declaring total income of Rs. 29,40,89,523/-. Subsequently, the assessee had filed a revised return of income on 30.03.2005 declaring an income of Rs.30,37,37,152/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under

Shri Balaji Industries Engineering Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Bhatra (JCIT)
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 271A

loss was due to unabsorbed depreciation which has been carried 3 M/s Shri Balaji Industrial Engineering Ltd. vs. ACIT forward. The assessee filed its revised return of income on 21.03.2015 in which undisclosed income of Rs. 65,00,000/- was also declared as surrendered vide letter dated ... completed the assessment on the revised return of income accepting the surrender income of Rs. 65,00,000/-. Subsequently, The AO initiated the proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act by issuing show cause notice dated 19.08.2015. The assessee objected to the proposed levy of penalty U/s 271AAB

Strapping Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4251/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 10ASection 80I

instead of under section 80IB. The assessee submitted to the AO that this claim be considered under section 80IB. He also filed a revised return in this respect. However, the AO rejected the claim of the assessee. It has been time and again held that the taxing authorities should

Shriram Jawahar Sahakari Sakhar Udyog vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 430/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kishore Phadke &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

initially electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 25.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. 2 Subsequently, assessee electronically filed revised return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.69,750/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed