← 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. CIT- Amravati Circle, Amravati vs. The Amaravati District Central, Amravati

ITA 29/NAG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2012-13/ The Deputy Commissioner Of The Amarvati District Central- Income Tax, Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Amravati Circle, Aayakar Bhavan, Irwin Square, Camp Road, Amba Peth, Vs. Amravati - 444602 Amravati-444601 Pan : Aaajt0726C

For Appellant: Shri L.S. Dewani &For Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe (Sr.DR))
Section 143Section 36(1)(viia)

response thereof the authorized representative attended the proceedings from time to time. The assessee bank also filed revised return declaring the total income of Rs. 13,83,57,280/-. After hearing the assessee the AO made addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on account of provisions ... compute the total income of the assessee Rs. 13,83,57,275/- in view of the fact that the assessee has filed the revised return of income declaring the total income of Rs. 13,83,57,280/-. 3. The revenue challenged the impugned order passed

Apexx Texpro Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. M/S. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4891/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: S/Shri V.K. Jain & Vikas SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

reliance on the decision reported in CIT vs NG Technologies (2015) 57 taxmann.COM 389 (DEL) submitted that since the 5 assessee did not file revised return voluntarily but had filed the same after the learned AO confronted the assessee and was asked to explain the claim of loss in question

Keane India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5880/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2002-03 Keane India Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 5(1), Unitech Trade Centre, New Delhi. Sector- 43, Sushant Lok, Vs. Gurgaon.

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151(2)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M.S.Aggarwal

ITA - 169 / 2005HC Delhi23 Apr 2018
Section 132Section 158Section 260

proceeding under this Chapter: Provided further that a person who has furnished a return under this clause shall not be entitled to file a revised return; (b) the Assessing Officer shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down in Section

Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 66/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. J.S. BhasinFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.36 lakhs received in the subsequent assessment year 2008-09 were also offered for tax under the head “capital gains”, but by way of revised return. 5. The Assessing Officer vide an order dated 30.12.2009, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, held that since physical and vacant possession ... 106/Chd/2016- Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Ludhiana 9 land by way of registered conveyance deed as noted above, broadly on following points:- i) That the revised return filed by the assessee on 7.10.2009 was treated by the Assessing officer as non est as it was filed beyond time. Also

ITO, Ludhiana vs. Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Ludhiana

In the result, the penalty of the assessee is hereby allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 106/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Vs. The Ito, Ward 6(1), 484-A, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. J.S. BhasinFor Respondent: Smt. Chanderkanta, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.36 lakhs received in the subsequent assessment year 2008-09 were also offered for tax under the head “capital gains”, but by way of revised return. 5. The Assessing Officer vide an order dated 30.12.2009, passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, held that since physical and vacant possession ... 106/Chd/2016- Sh. Charanjit Singh Atwal, Ludhiana 9 land by way of registered conveyance deed as noted above, broadly on following points:- i) That the revised return filed by the assessee on 7.10.2009 was treated by the Assessing officer as non est as it was filed beyond time. Also

Arjun Malhotra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA/405/2005HC Delhi20 Apr 2018

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(1)Section 48Section 54F

filed his return of income of Rs.2,33,89,820/- on 15th September, 1998. The income was revised to Rs.2,33,49,680/- vide revised return filed on 29th June, 1999. 4. For the AY 1999-2000, the assessee had filed its return of income on 29th June, 1999 declaring

Arjun Malhotra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals are disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA/406/2005HC Delhi20 Apr 2018

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 2(47)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45(1)Section 48Section 54F

filed his return of income of Rs.2,33,89,820/- on 15th September, 1998. The income was revised to Rs.2,33,49,680/- vide revised return filed on 29th June, 1999. 4. For the AY 1999-2000, the assessee had filed its return of income on 29th June, 1999 declaring

DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose as indicated above

ITA 2176/KOL/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2014-15 Dcit, Circle10(1), V/S. M/S Bridge & Roof Co. Aayakar Bhawan, 3Rd (India) Ltd., 2?1, Russel Street, 5Th Floor, Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 Kolkata-71 [Pan No.Aabcb 3166 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Agarwallaa, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 12-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 20-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata Dated 16.08.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 28.03.2016 For Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By Revenue, Which Reads As Under:- “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Holding That The Customers Of The Assessee Have Settled The Accounts Permanently After Deducting The Liquidated Damages & They Have Refused To Pay The Amount Forever? Was Not He Wrong In Holding That The Assessee Company Has Extinguished Its Right To Receive Money From Its Clients? 2. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Deleting The Addition On Account Of Entertainment Expenses Despite The Fact That The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Documentary Evidence In Support Of Its Claim? Has Not The Ao The Right To Enquire Into Purpose Of Expenditure & Does The Doctrine That The Businessman Is The Best Judge Of Business Expediency Affect The Rights And

Section 143(3)

original return claimed the same under the head “long term” provision for ₹54.74 lakh but the same was revised to ₹63.63 lacs in its revised return and it was classified under “short term” provision. The AO also observed that the LTC cannot be quantified with substantial decree of estimation. Therefore

Sharad Bhagwat Tembwalkar, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 530/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhmr. Sharad Bhagwant Principle Commissioner Of Tembwalkar, Flat No. 1501, Income-Tax -27 Adonis Building, Raheja Mumbai. Acropolis, Near Telecom Vs. Factory, Govanid, Mumbai -400088 Pan:Advpt6884B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Dhiren P. Talati (Ar) Revenue By : Sh. Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (‘The Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -27, Mumbai

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiren P. Talati (AR)For Respondent: Sh. Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54F

Year on 10.03.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 3,05,600/-. The return was selected for scrutiny. During the scrutiny assessment the assessee filed revised return of income on 10.01.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 64,63,870/-. In the revised return of income the assessee included Long Term Capital

Dciat 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sundaram Multipap Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5327/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 14A

Court in the case of 'Goetze (India) Limited v. CIT' (2006) 157 Taxman 1, relating to the restriction of making the claim through a revised return was limited to the powers of the Assessing Authority and the said judgment does not impinge on the power or negate the powers

Venkatesh Venkatasubramanian, Chennai vs. ITO International Taxation 2(2), Chennai

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

ITA 2742/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2742/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 199(1)

submission that the assessee had originally filed his return of income disclosing a total income of Rs.29,60,100/- and subsequently, revised return was filed by disclosing the income of Rs.3,47,750/- after claiming exemption. The assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3), wherein, the income of the assessee

Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Dilipkumar V. Lakhi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 57/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.57/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-19(1) बिधम/ M/S. Dilipkumbar V. Lakhi 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Cc-8011-8012-8013 Bharat Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai- Diamond Bourse, Bandra, 400007 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpl9618G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr.Dr) Assessee By: Shri Subhash S. Shetty सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19.04.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.10.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay.2011-12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Transactions Of Purchase & Sale Of Shares As Short Term Capital Gain Instead Of Business Income. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Transaction Of Purchase & Sale Of

For Appellant: Shri Subhash S. ShettyFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr.DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

assessee filed his return of income on 28.09.2011 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.62,65,65,111/-. The assessee also filed the revised return of income on 23.11.2011 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.64,18,54,404/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, therefore, notice

The ACIT, Vijayawada vs. Sri Batchu Amarnath, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal No.427/Viz/2016, ITA No

ITA 456/VIZ/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Apr 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.427/Viz/2016 , I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2016 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively) Sri Batchu Amarnath Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1) D.No.23-31-3/B, Kommuvari Street Vijayawada Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada [Pan :Agrpb6279P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.456/Viz/2016 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10) Acit Vs. Sri Batchu Amarnath Circle-3(1) D.No.23-31-3/B Vijayawada Kommuvari Street Satyanarayanapuram Vijayawada [Pan :Agrpb6279P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.07/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.456/Viz/2016) Sri Batchu Amarnath Vs. Acit D.No.23-31-3/B, Kommuvari Street Circle-3(1) Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Agrpb6279P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) धनधााररती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam,Ar राजस्ि की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri K.C.Das, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.04.2018 18 .04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam,ARFor Respondent: Shri K.C.Das, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

crores towards unexplained investment in the work in progress for the assessment year 2009-10 in the firm’s hand. As admitted, he filed revised return and paid the taxes in the hands of the firm for the assessment year 2009-10. Later, the assessee retracted from his admission & filed ... revised returns from A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2010-11 admitting the income from all ventures in his hands as an individual. But no work-in-progress as admitted during the survey & as declared in the revised returns in firms hands, was admitted in the individual for A.Y. For every retraction

Sri Batchu Amarnath, Vijayawada vs. The Dy. CIT, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal No.427/Viz/2016, ITA No

ITA 428/VIZ/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.427/Viz/2016 , I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2016 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively) Sri Batchu Amarnath Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1) D.No.23-31-3/B, Kommuvari Street Vijayawada Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada [Pan :Agrpb6279P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.456/Viz/2016 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10) Acit Vs. Sri Batchu Amarnath Circle-3(1) D.No.23-31-3/B Vijayawada Kommuvari Street Satyanarayanapuram Vijayawada [Pan :Agrpb6279P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.07/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.456/Viz/2016) Sri Batchu Amarnath Vs. Acit D.No.23-31-3/B, Kommuvari Street Circle-3(1) Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Agrpb6279P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) धनधााररती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam,Ar राजस्ि की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri K.C.Das, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.04.2018 18 .04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam,ARFor Respondent: Shri K.C.Das, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

crores towards unexplained investment in the work in progress for the assessment year 2009-10 in the firm’s hand. As admitted, he filed revised return and paid the taxes in the hands of the firm for the assessment year 2009-10. Later, the assessee retracted from his admission & filed ... revised returns from A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2010-11 admitting the income from all ventures in his hands as an individual. But no work-in-progress as admitted during the survey & as declared in the revised returns in firms hands, was admitted in the individual for A.Y. For every retraction

Sri Batchu Amarnath, Vijayawada vs. The Dy. CIT, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal No.427/Viz/2016, ITA No

ITA 427/VIZ/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Apr 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.427/Viz/2016 , I.T.A.No.428/Viz/2016 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10 & 2010-11 Respectively) Sri Batchu Amarnath Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1) D.No.23-31-3/B, Kommuvari Street Vijayawada Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada [Pan :Agrpb6279P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.456/Viz/2016 (धनधाारण िर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10) Acit Vs. Sri Batchu Amarnath Circle-3(1) D.No.23-31-3/B Vijayawada Kommuvari Street Satyanarayanapuram Vijayawada [Pan :Agrpb6279P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.07/Viz/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.456/Viz/2016) Sri Batchu Amarnath Vs. Acit D.No.23-31-3/B, Kommuvari Street Circle-3(1) Satyanarayanapuram, Vijayawada Vijayawada [Pan :Agrpb6279P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) धनधााररती की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam,Ar राजस्ि की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri K.C.Das, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.04.2018 18 .04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam,ARFor Respondent: Shri K.C.Das, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

crores towards unexplained investment in the work in progress for the assessment year 2009-10 in the firm’s hand. As admitted, he filed revised return and paid the taxes in the hands of the firm for the assessment year 2009-10. Later, the assessee retracted from his admission & filed ... revised returns from A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2010-11 admitting the income from all ventures in his hands as an individual. But no work-in-progress as admitted during the survey & as declared in the revised returns in firms hands, was admitted in the individual for A.Y. For every retraction

M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

cannot be interpreted to be a further innings for the Assessing Officer and/or assessee beyond provisions of Sections 139 (return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 31 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt

M/S. Cliff Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

cannot be interpreted to be a further innings for the Assessing Officer and/or assessee beyond provisions of Sections 139 (return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 31 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt

M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2519/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

cannot be interpreted to be a further innings for the Assessing Officer and/or assessee beyond provisions of Sections 139 (return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 31 M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Cliff TreximPvt

Ketan Lalitbhai Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 1216/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1216/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 Shri Ketan Lalitbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bawaliya Faliya At&Post Ward 2(3)(2) Surat Abhava Taluka Choryashi District Surat 395007 Pan: Aorpp 4348B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 50CSection 50C(2)(a)Section 54B

thus, shown short-term capital loss at Rs. 48,144. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has filed revised return on 05.02.2015 claiming that property sold in question was acquired on 11.04.2005 by way of irrevocable Power of Attorney and said property was sold on Shri Ketan ... Karvada village and made a claim of deduction under section 54B of the Act. However, the AO did not accept the revised claim as revised return was filed late, hence, it was not found acceptable in the light of decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze