← 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

Income-Tax Officer, Pune vs. Enterprised DB Software India Pvt.Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1105/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Dr. Vivek AggarwalFor Respondent: None
Section 10Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 10BSection 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 40aSection 80A(5)

been held that an assessee can amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction only by filing a revised return? 5. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in allowing alternate claim ... also rejected the reliance of the assessee on the CBDT Circular No.XIV, dated 11-04-1955 stating that the time limit to file the revised return has elapsed and any deduction can be made only through a valid return of income as required u/s.80A(5) of the Act. Eventually

Shah Lulla Estate Developers, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2560/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2560/Pun/2016 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 132(5)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 80ASection 80I

erred in not allowing deduction claimed by the appellant u/s. 80I(A)(1) on the ground that appellant has claimed deduction in the revised return in spite of the fact that, revised return is to cover the omission in the original return & it is continuous process of the original return ... make a claim in the return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act and however, made a claim in the revised return filed under section 139(4) of the Act within due date provided in this regard. Stating that this issue stands covered in favour of assessee

M/S Keti Sangham Infrastruture (I) Limited, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Indore

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 516/IND/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

before it Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. could be detected. 21. The correct and accurate disclosure may be by filing the revised return or by furnishing the particulars of such income before the detection by the AO. The mere fact that the assessee had not revised returns

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Raqunak International Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes,

ITA 6081/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. M.K. Madan (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Atiq Ahmed (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee 21 ITA Nos. 5610 & 6081/Del/2014. Raunaq International Ltd.,New Delhi. on the ground that no revised return of income was filed withdrawing the said disallowance. The Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the claim of the assessee following his own order dated 09/12/2012

M/S. Raunaq International Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes,

ITA 5610/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. M.K. Madan (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Atiq Ahmed (Sr. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee 21 ITA Nos. 5610 & 6081/Del/2014. Raunaq International Ltd.,New Delhi. on the ground that no revised return of income was filed withdrawing the said disallowance. The Ld. CIT(A) also rejected the claim of the assessee following his own order dated 09/12/2012

A.Tenzing, Sivakasi vs. ACIT Central Circle 2, Madurai

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

ITA 2979/CHNY/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2979/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs The Acit, Shri A. Tenzing, No.1, Gnanagiri Road, Central Circle – 2, Sivakasi – 626 123. Madurai. Pan: Abppt7646D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. Vijayaprabha, JCITFor Respondent: 09.05.2018
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69C

individual and Director of M/s. Standard Fireworks Pvt. Ltd., Sivakasi, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2014- 15 and subsequently filed revised return of income admitting total income of Rs.45,16,240/-. A search U/s.132 of the Act was carried out in the premises of Standard Fireworks

ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Pearl Global Industries Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7614/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are the assessee filed e-return of income on 30.11.2014 declaring at NIL income. Further revised return was filed on 6.2.2015 declaring again NIL income. The case of the assessee company was selected for ‘Complete Scrutiny’ under CASS and statutory notice

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Jugal Kishore Arora, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 157/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 80

facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the question of considering revised return is not applicable to the returns filed u/s 139(3) read with section 80 of the I.T. Act.” 2. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that this issue ... loss in the original return of income therefore he is not entitled to claim the said loss as the assessee has not filed any revised return of income U/s 139(5) of the Act. The time of filling the revised return has expired on 31.03.2012. 7 ITA.No.157/Del./2015 Shri

Natesan Krishnamurthy, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1672/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1672/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014. Natesan Krishnamurthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 24/60, Mookathal Street, Non Corporate Ward 9(2) Purasawalkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 007. [Pan Ancpk 2634B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs. Ruby George, IRS, CIT
Section 40A(3)Section 5

Manappuram Finance Limited. Though in his original return, sales/gross receipts shown in the profit and loss account was only "6,66,134/- in a revised return filed sales/gross receipts of "34,74,81,586/- was shown. Corresponding purchases were for "34,68,15,452/-. Assessee was required to explain ... wanted to purchase old gold jewellery from M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd.. However, ld. Assessing Officer has clearly noted that assessee in his revised return had admitted purchase of gold from M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd for "34,68,15,452/- and sale thereof

ITO 29(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kiran Anil Bist, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 687/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer-29(2)(1), Kiran Anil Bist, Building No.C-10, Room 202, B. Wing, Kamal Park, बनाम/ No.201, Income Tax Office, Near Mangatram Petrol Vs. Pratyakshakar Bahvan, Pump, Bhandup(W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400078 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Ajapb3460A

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

engaged in trading activities of MDF Board/plywood, declared income of Rs.1,93,074/- in its return filed on 20/07/2012. Thereafter the assessee filed revised return on 29/03/2014, declaring total income of Rs.2,07,880/- which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee

Shakti Hardware Collections P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 212/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhshakti Hardware Collections Pvt. Dcit Cc -3(3), Ltd. 60/62, Kika Street, Mumbai. Gulabwadi, Mumbai-400004. Vs. Pan: Aaecs6501K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ryan Saldanha (Ar) Respondent By : Ms. Arju Garodia (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri Ryan Saldanha (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia (DR)
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

variation in value of inventories without appreciating the fact that the same was offered by the appellant on its own by way of revised return of income without anything being detected by the department. ITA No. 212/Mum 17 Shakti hardware Collections Pvt. Ltd. 3. The appellant prays that the penalty ... hardware goods, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2010-11 on 29.09.2010 declaring total loss of Rs. 43,26,781/-. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed on 29.09.2011 revising the total loss to Rs. 3,14,213/-. The assessment was completed on 24.01.2013 under section

Mahesh H. Hinduja, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 21(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 176/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Dr. A.L. Sainishri Mahesh H. Hinduja 501, Mahir, 15Th Road Main Avenue Junction ……………. Appellant Santacruz (W), Mumbai 400 054 Pan – Aaaph3488B V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–21(3)(3), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Subhash ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 54

return of income for the impugned assessment year on 28th July 2011, declaring total income of ` 4,91,750. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income under section 139(5) of the Act on 20th October 2012, declaring total income of ` 6,24,050. In the said revised ... residential house. Thus, in effect, no capital gain was offered to tax. Alleging that the assessee filed the revised return of income after issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the Assessing Officer held that the said revised return of income filed by the assessee claiming deduction

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S El El Hotels Ltd., Mumbai

In the result ground No. 4 of the

ITA 2465/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. El El Hotels Ltd, Central Circle-3, R/O. Hotel Sea Rock, New Delhi Bandstand, Bj Road, Bandra, Mumbai Pan: Aaace2846D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 14Section 14ASection 254Section 69Section 69C

disallowed any expenditure under section 14 A of the income tax act 1961 in the original return of income. However in the revised return a sum of Rs. 3, 95, 682/– has been considered as an expenditure attributable to the income with respect to mutual fund that dividend and therefore ... interest on borrowed capital utilized for such investment as against Rs. 7, 74, 813/– worked out is disallowable by the appellant. In the revised return assessee restricted it to Rs. 3, 95, 682/–. The Ld. assessing officer estimated 2% of other expenditure and made a disallowance

Ramesh Chand Bansal, Beawar vs. DCIT, Ajmer

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

originally the income admitted in the course of search was not returned by it. But the fact is that the assessee had filed a revised return before completing the assessment. When that is the case, the first return filed by the assessee is a non est. The only valid return ... revised return filed by the assessee. In that return, the amount admitted by the assessee at the time of search was offered for taxation. The assessee has paid the tax; he has paid the interest. He has not preferred any quantum appeal. He has also explained about the business

Bhabesh Majumdar, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-45, Kolkata

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

ITA 1933/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravia.Y 2009-10

For Appellant: Dr Somnath Ghosh, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)

Majumdar capital loss has been inflated. The same were rectified by true figures of long term capital loss and short capital loss in the revised return of income and submitted that there is no concealment of income in furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and prayed to drop the penalty proceedings ... mistake stated to have been occurred due to error committed by the accountant found detected during the course of preparation of 4 Bhabesh Majumdar revised return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. We find that the assessee admitted the fact of committing

Dy. Comm. of Income-Tax, Cirlce-1, Nashik vs. M/S. Sidhivinayak Associates, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and cross objections raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1350/PUN/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1350/Pun/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 143(2)

assessee filed original return of income for the impugned assessment year on 30.09.2008 declaring total income of Rs.2,26,96,270/-. Thereafter, assessee filed revised return of income on 02.06.2009 declaring income at Rs.5,96,08,010/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, mandatory notice ... return of income offered income from sale of land comprising in Gat No. 85 and Gat No. 307 @ Rs.12 Lakhs per acre. In the revised return of income filed on 02.06.2009, the assessee offered additional income @ Rs.9.50 Lakhs per acre after netting off all expenses with respect to Gat No.85

Express Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 930/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.930/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Express Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Express Estates, No. 2, Club House Vs. Income Tax, Road, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Company Circle Ii(1), [Pan: Aabce5521G] Chennai. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sandhya Rani, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.05.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2018 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) 9, Chennai Dated 30.12.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Interest Receipt Of ₹.62,77,671/- Is Income & Is To Be Assessed As Income From Other Sources.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sandhya Rani, JCIT
Section 143(3)

developing and maintenance of commercial complex and filed its return on 30.09.2009 declaring an income of ₹.2,98,060/-. The assessee filed a revised return on 28.09.2010. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] assessing the total income

Toshiba India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle- 25(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1438/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Upvan Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Ambastha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

account of provision for warranty at the time of filing of income tax return and the claim was not made through revised return but through return representation during the proceedings before the Tribunal. He held that such a fresh claim cannot be considered by the Assessing Officer other than ... revised return and in support, strongly relied upon the decision of Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in (2006) 248 ITR 323 (SC). However, since the Tribunal has remanded back the case to the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of warranty by the assessee on the basis of facts

M/S. Nidhi Packers Private Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2460/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 2460/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Nidhi Packers Pvt. Ltd...................................………………………………………........Appellant C/O. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co. 7, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata – 700 072. [Pan: Aabcn 6585 F] Ito, Ward 1(4) Kolkata...................……………………………………………....................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 15, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata Dated 21.08.2017. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Cultivation Of Tea. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Originally Filed By It On 11.10.2010 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 2,06,895/- After Claiming Deduction Of Rs. 29,60,906/- U/S 80Ie Of The Act. Subsequently A Revised Return Was Filed By The Assessee On 16.03.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 2,06,894/- After Claiming Deduction Of Rs. 33,88,317/- U/S 80Ie Of The Act. In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Vide An Order Dated 14.03.2013, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Computed By The Ao At Rs. 2,06,895/- As Declared In The Return Of Income Originally Filed. In The Income Tax Computation Form

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 80I

declaring a total income of Rs. 2,06,895/- after claiming deduction of Rs. 29,60,906/- u/s 80IE of the Act. Subsequently a revised return was filed by the assessee on 16.03.2011 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,06,894/- after claiming deduction ... payable as per income tax computation form. It was also contended on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) that the revised return of income filed by it was not considered by the AO. Even the interest charged by the AO under section 234A, 234B and 234C

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Chirag Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4321/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Virender Singh, DRFor Respondent: Miss Pritama Pokhrana, AR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

levied by AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the additional income disclosed by the assessee by following revised return on the basis of statement recorded during the course of survey under section 133A of the Act has no evidenciary value. For this ... deleting the penalty of Rs 16.97,515/u/s 271(l)(c) on the ground that the additional income disclosed by the assessee by filing revised return on the basis of statement recorded during survey has no evidenciary value while the assessee has admitted undisclosed income during survey in his statement