← 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

Electrocast Sales India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-Xxi, Kolkata

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

ITA 2145/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2145/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Electrocast Sales India Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Cc-Xxi, Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 5671 N] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 72ASection 79

under the normal provisions of the Act. and Rs 4,29,19,975/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Later a revised return of income was filed on 30.3.2013 declaring total income of Rs Nil after 2 Electrocast Sales India Ltd. A.Yr.2011-12 claiming set off of brought forward business ... following six companies with unabsorbed capital and business losses as detailed below were merged with the assessee company w.e.f. 1.4.2010 :- The assessee vide its revised return claimed unabsorbed short term capital loss of Rs 4,86,48,349/- and unabsorbed business loss of RS 4,95,893/- incurred

D.C.I.T Cir - 7, Kolkata vs. M/S Bch Electric Ltd ( Foremerly M/S Bhartia Industires Limited), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection of assessee is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 1401/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1401/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-7, Kolkata -Vs- M/S Bch Electric Ltd. (Formerly Known M/S Bharti Industries Ltd.). [Pan: Aabcb 2076 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 96/Kol/2013 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 1401/Kol/2013) Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Bch Electric Ltd. (Formerly -Vs- Dcit, Circle-7, Kolkata Known M/S Bharti Industries Ltd.) [Pan: Aabcb 2076 M] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)

income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 30.09.2009 disclosing net loss of Rs. 2,35,85,967/-. Thereafter the assessee filed a revised return on 19.08.2010 showing NIL income and tax was payable as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Act on the Book Profits ... submitted that the assessee did not make any claim of deduction towards the same in assessment year 2010-11. The assessee however filed a revised return for assessment year 2009-10 and claimed the said sum of Rs. 3,01,21,223/- as revenue expenditure as admittedly the said

Dairy Owners League Co Op Soc .Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 80P(2)(d)

respect of its income under the head ‘Long Term Capital Gain’ and income from other sources without appreciating the fact that it has filed revised return rectifying the mistake in not adopting consideration as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act and also, the error committed in respect ... Ld.CIT(A) was erred in confirming penalty levied by the AO, without appreciating the fact that the difference between income returned as per revised return filed and income assessed by the AO after giving effect to the order of ITAT stands reduced to Rs.7,12,669. The assessee further submitted

Diljit Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, Mohali

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 578/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Jaspal SharmaFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

lacs is valid in law or not. 5. Before us the Ld. AR argued that original return was filed on 23/09/2008 and the revised return was filed on 13/11/2009. The taxes pertaining to the Long Term Capital Gain was paid on 11/11/2009. The notice under section 148 was issued ... society office and found that the assessee was residing at USA. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has shown evidences regarding the revised return filed by the assessee declaring the capital gain on the basis of actual receipt by the assessee i. e. Rs. 32 lacs in lieu

ITO, Mohali vs. Sh. Dalhit Singh, Mohali

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 560/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Jaspal SharmaFor Respondent: Smt. Chandrakanta
Section 2(47)(ii)Section 2(47)(v)Section 2(47)(vi)Section 269USection 45Section 53A

term capital gain at Rs. 29,76,424/- which was calculated on the basis of sale consideration actually received i.e. Rs. 32 lacs. The revised return filed by the assessee declaring the capital gain on the basis of actual receipt by the assessee i. e. Rs. 32 lacs in lieu ... High Court i.e. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of C.S. Atwal and others Vs. CIT(2015)59 Taxmann.com 35. This revised return was not before the A.O at the time of completion of assessment. As the assessment order was completed ex-parte the additional evidence filed

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 1044/PUN/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1044/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri R. MurlidharFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT
Section 80H

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.92,68,728/- u/s. 80HHC of the Act. In the revised returns, the assessee reduced claim to Rs.89,29,348/-. The Assessing Officer restricted the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 80HHC to Rs.51,15,706/- after excluding

M/S Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner

WP/27667/2015HC Karnataka07 Mar 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

source and which has been remitted to the TDS account and as such petitioner would be at liberty to file an application or revised return before the appropriate authority in this regard, if not already filed. In the event of such return or application being filed, Income tax Department and/or ... jurisdictional 21 Commissioner of Income Tax shall take immediate steps to process said revised return or application and refund the amount to the petitioner to which it would be entitled to expeditiously at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Petitioner

M/S Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vs. Mr. B.B. Madaya

WP/26380/2015HC Karnataka07 Mar 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

source and which has been remitted to the TDS account and as such petitioner would be at liberty to file an application or revised return before the appropriate authority in this regard, if not already filed. In the event of such return or application being filed, Income tax Department and/or ... jurisdictional 21 Commissioner of Income Tax shall take immediate steps to process said revised return or application and refund the amount to the petitioner to which it would be entitled to expeditiously at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Petitioner

M/S. Power Grid Corporation vs. The Assistant Commissioner

WP/43215/2015HC Karnataka07 Mar 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

source and which has been remitted to the TDS account and as such petitioner would be at liberty to file an application or revised return before the appropriate authority in this regard, if not already filed. In the event of such return or application being filed, Income tax Department and/or ... jurisdictional 21 Commissioner of Income Tax shall take immediate steps to process said revised return or application and refund the amount to the petitioner to which it would be entitled to expeditiously at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Petitioner

M/S Power Grid Corporation of India Limited vs. Mr Swamy Gowda

WP/27668/2015HC Karnataka07 Mar 2018

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

source and which has been remitted to the TDS account and as such petitioner would be at liberty to file an application or revised return before the appropriate authority in this regard, if not already filed. In the event of such return or application being filed, Income tax Department and/or ... jurisdictional 21 Commissioner of Income Tax shall take immediate steps to process said revised return or application and refund the amount to the petitioner to which it would be entitled to expeditiously at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Petitioner

ITO, Ward-35(3), Kolkata vs. Shri Laxmipat Surana, Kolkata

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

ITA 2398/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 2398/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 I.T.O, Ward-35(3), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Laxmipat Surana [Pan: Akbps 7037 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 14/Kol/2017 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 2398/Kol/2016 ) Assessment Year : 2012-13 I.T.O, Ward-35(3), Kolkata -Vs- Shri Laxmipat Surana [Pan: Akbps 7037 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43B

assessment year 2012-13 was filed by the assessee on 30.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 1,73,179/-. Later the assessee filed its revised return on 29.12.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 1,33,143/- with claiming current year loss of Rs. 28,74,505/-. This revised return ... submitted by the assessee regarding total income of Rs. 1,33,143/- and current year loss of Rs. 28,74,505/- as per his revised return filed on 29.12.2013. The assessee had taken a vacant land on lease from Railways for a period of 25 years which is further renewable

ITO 26(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Ravinder Singh Lamba, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1541/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 29th September 2011, declaring loss of ` 1098,47,11,129. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 29th March 2012, showing loss at ` 1090,99,86,534. Assessment in case of assessee was completed under section

Kokan Mercantile Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 17(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 979/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm A.C.I.T -17(1) Kokan Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 1St Floor. R. No. 113 बिधम/ Harbour Crest, Piramal Chambers Mazgaon, Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400 010 Mumbai स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaak2527P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Kokan Mercantile Co-Operativebank Ltd. Jt.C.I.T. 17(1) I.T. Harbour Crest, Offices, Piramal बिधम/ Mazgaon, Chambers (1St Floor) Vs. Mumbai 400 010 Parel, Mumbai-400 012 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaaak2527P (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.RFor Respondent: Shri M.Subramanian A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

premium on investments although the assessee had not filed, a claim in, this regard during assessment proceedings either by way of original return or revised return of income. 4. The appellant prays that the order the CIT(A) being erroneous in facts and in law be reversed and that ... raised by it for the first time. The assessee submitted that the revised computation of income placed on record be treated as a revised return of income and its income be assessed after considering the claim in respect of expenses on account of amortization on investments so raised

ITO, Ward (E), Chandigarh vs. Sant Baba Sunder Singh, Barnala

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed said order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself

ITA 1183/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Diva Singhassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajit Saldi
Section 10Section 11Section 143(3)Section 68

Apex Court has held that any new claim or any change in the original return of income can only be made by filing a revised return and not by making a claim during the assessment proceeding by filing revised computation/simple letter. iv. That on the facts and circumstances

ITO International Taxation 1(2), Chennai vs. Mafaz Mohammed, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1759/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: 04.01.2018
Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 48

assessment year 2014-15 electronically on 31.12.2014 declaring taxable income of Rs.1,17,16,770/- and subsequently the assessee has also filed revised return of income admitting taxable income of Rs.2,69,68,400/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice U/s.143(2) of the Act was issued

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5604/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhita No.5604/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year- 2009-10) Dcit-2(1)(1) M/S Bank Of Baroda Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, C-26, ‘G’ Block, Baroda Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Corporate Centre, Bandra Vs. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 Pan: Aaacb1534F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr) Revenue By : Shri C. Naresh (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.03.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. These Two Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai, [For Short The Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 30.06.2016 & 22.11. 2011 For Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. The Revenue In Both The Appeals Has Raised Identical Grounds Of Appeal; Hence Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Decided By Common Order. For Appreciation Of Fact, We Are Discussing The Fact For Assessment Year 2008-09. Though The Revenue Has Raised Two Ground Of Appeal, However, As Per Our Considered View The Sole Ground Of Appeal Is Whether Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Broken Period Interest Expenditure. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is Banking Company. The Assessee Is Carrying Banking Business. The Assessment For The Assessment Year 2008-09 Was Completed On 30.12.2010 Under Ita No. 5604/Mum/2016- M/S Bank Of Baroda

For Appellant: Ms. S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)For Respondent: Shri C. Naresh (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

section 148 dated 31.12.2013 was served upon the assessee- bank. In response to the notice under section 148, the assessee requested to treat the revised return filed on 12.03.2010 as return in response to the said notice. The re-assessment was completed on 26.03.2015 under section 143(3) r.w.s

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tech Mahindra ( R &D Services) Ltd (Now Merged With Tech Mahindra Ltd), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2392/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: S/Shri Kartik Natarajan, H.P. MahajaniFor Respondent: S/Shri Jayant Kumar, Saurabh Deshpande
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)

development services for telecom equipment manufacturers, carriers and service providers.It filed return of income on 30.10.2007,declaring a total income of Rs.2.01 crores.Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 12.8.2008, declaring a total loss of Rs.7.23crores.The AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3)of the Act on,24.1.2011,determining the income

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Wadia Ghandy & Co., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3400/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3400/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Asst. Cit-16(3), Wadia Ghandy & Co., Room No.446, 4Th Floor, N. M. Wadia Building, बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, 123, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafw 1081 H (Revenue) (Assessee) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2835/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ Wadia Ghandy & Co., Jt. Cit, Circle 16(3), Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 Vs. (Assessee) : (Revenue) Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari : Shri Millin Dattani & Assessee By Shri Parth Desai सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 04.01.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 01.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals By The Assessee & Revenue Arising Out Of The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 26.02.2016, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12. Wadia Ghandy & Co. Assessee'S Appeal: 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Assessing Officer’S Action Of Disallowance Of Deprecation On Tenancy Rights Of Rs.6,44,920/-. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That Tenancy Rights Were A Form Of License. Revenues Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40

profession. It filed its original return of income for assessment year 2011-12 on 30.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.24,02,02,163/- and revised return of income on 30.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs.23,94,80,668/-, which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessment

Sanjay D. Kakade, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 17/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Swamy, HUF 35 CCH 305, Ld. Counsel submitted that the penalty is not leviable u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act when the assessee filed revised returns before completion of assessment in which additional income was disclosed during the search. Ld. Counsel prayed for deleting the penalty. ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013

Sanjay D. Kakade, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 15/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Swamy, HUF 35 CCH 305, Ld. Counsel submitted that the penalty is not leviable u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act when the assessee filed revised returns before completion of assessment in which additional income was disclosed during the search. Ld. Counsel prayed for deleting the penalty. ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013