“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

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

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

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

Ayurvedant Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 3242/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.P.Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143Section 251(2)Section 69Section 80Section 80I

return of income was processed under section 143 (1) of the Act and, subsequently, the assessee also filed revised return of income at nil income claiming the deduction under section 80IC at Rs. 12,29,594/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the AO proceeded to disallow

Shri Naresh Chandra Agrawal, Gwalior vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 74/AGR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

copy placed on record), dated 23.01.2009, is of no help to the Department. In that matter, the AO had not entertained the revised return filed by the assessee, which, as noted, is not the case herein. The proposition in ‘Ram Chandra’ (supra) is also not applicable here

ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Orissa Construction Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and assessee are allowed

ITA 413/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Naik/Rajat Kar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37

income for the assessment year 2010-2011 was filed by the assessee on 8.10.2010 showing total income of Rs.2,17,76,068/-. Subsequently, revised return was filed on 29.3.2012 showing total income at Rs.2,02,26,154/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act determining ... return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 was originally filed on 29.9.2012 showing total income of Rs.3,08,88,480/-. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 28.3.2014 showing a total income of Rs.3,43,37,740/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notices u/s.143

Odisha Construction Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and assessee are allowed

ITA 408/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Naik/Rajat Kar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 37

M/S. Emas Expressway Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 267/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 267/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Emas Expressway Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………….Appellant 53A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata – 700016 [Pan : Aaace9530E] D.C.I.T, Cir 8(1)..……………………………………………………………………….Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri G. Banerjee, Advocate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 22, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 16, Kolkata Dated 03.12.2016 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Disallowance Made By The A.O. & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Assessee’S Claim For Deduction Under Section 80Ia In Respect Of The Interest Written Back Amounting To Rs. 4,94,57,248/-, Insurance Claim Receipts Amounting To Rs. 15,46,936/- & Other Income Amounting To Rs. 4,808/-. 2. The Assessee In The Present Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Construction Of Highways. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Originally Filed By It On 29.09.2008 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 8,62,32,582/-. In The Said Return, The Interest Liability Written Back Amounting To Rs.

Section 143(3)Section 80I

declared by the assessee company as its income under the head “income from other sources”. Subsequently a revised return was filed by the assessee declaring total income of Rs. 3,67,75,334/- wherein the said amount was treated by the assessee as its income from business entitled for deduction ... liability of Rs.3,47,72,165/- and the same was initially shown “as income from other sources” and offered for taxation. However, in the revised return later filed, the assessee has treated the interest income as income from “business” activity and claimed deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. We note

Smt Saraswathi Manoharan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 962/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sandeep Goel, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 24Section 250Section 80

circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the notice under section 143(2) was issued on the revised return of income filed by the appellant and consequently the learned Assessing officer ought to have considered the income referred in the revised return on income ... claimed by the appellant of a sum of Rs.37,30,206/-under the head income from house property in the revised return ought to have been granted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant can make

Vimal Balvant Mavani (HUF), Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 12(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2228/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 29.11.2017

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 194HSection 40

fact that the disallowance uls.40(a)(ia) was no longer required, which is a bona fide mistake and thus ought to have accepted the revised return. 2.3 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not noting the fact that in any case, the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) is unwarranted ... paid the deducted tax of `14,09,819/- required to be deducted u/s.194H of the 3 Act. Therefore, the assessee filed a revised return of income at `4,55,720/-, this time withdrawing the disallowance of `14,09,819/- made in the original return of income. 3.1 The case

Harveer Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5472/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 5472/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Harveer Singh Kalra, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, A-29, Friends Colony, Central Circle-15(Old)/14(New), New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afbpk6171Q Assessee By : Ms. Rano Jain, Devita Sharma, Advs. & Sh. Ashish Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Munish Kumar Gupta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Devita Sharma, Advs. &For Respondent: Sh. Munish Kumar Gupta, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132ASection 139Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)

lordships in para 21 has held as under: 3 Harveer Singh Kalra “21. Thus, it is clear that when the AO has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed under Section ... assessee, which incidentally gives him an opportunity to make good omission, if any, in the original return. Once the A.O. accepts the revised return filed under Section 153A, the original return under Section 139 abates and becomes non- est. Now, it is trite to say that the "concealment

DCIT, Cir-9(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1292/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 115JSection 143(3)

Finance Act, 2012, and A statutory claim could be made by way of a letter before an appellate authority even without filing a revised return if the facts with regard to the same are Assessment Year: 2010-2011 already available on record before the lower authorities and they remain undisputed

M/S. M. Hanumantha Rao, Bellary vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kalaburagi

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

ITA 158/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S. M. Hanumatha Rao, H. No.37, W. No.17, Ground Floor, Main Road Near Park Patel Nagar, Ballari – 583101. … Appellant Pan:Aanfm 1777H Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 1, Ballary. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. P. Dinesha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Parbat, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

this was revised on 28.02.2013 at a total income of Rs.13,09,79,754/-. The variation between the original return of income and revised return of income was stated to be on account of offering of E-auction sale proceeds of Rs.14,68,19,400/-. Against the said return

DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 356/KOL/2016[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.356& 338/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02&2006-07) Vs. M/S Eih Ltd. Dcit, Cir-8(1), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata – 1. Sq., Kolkata- 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaace 6898 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Respondent By : Shri Asim Chaudhury, Advocate. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years2001-02 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16,Kolkata. 2.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue (In Ita No.338/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has The Power U/S 251 Of The Income Tax Act To Accept The Claim Of The Assessee For Amending The Return Except Otherwise Than By Filing A Revised Return. 2. That The Appellant Reserves The Right To Amend, Alter Or Add To Any Ground(S) Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” 3.The Brief Facts Qua The Issue Are That Theassessee Filed Its Return Of Fringe Benefits On 27.11.2006 Showing Value Of Fringe Benefit At Rs.8,28,82,508/- & The Same Was Processed U/S 115We Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Thereafter, Notice U/S 115We(2) R.W.S 142(1) Of The Act, Was Issued To The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Claimed That Expenditure Of Rs.2,24,48,941/- Was Incurred On Uniform Of Employees On Office Duty Is Not Liable To Be Considered For M/S Eih Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Asim Chaudhury, Advocate

Section 115WSection 251

Income Tax Act to accept the claim of the assessee for amending the return except otherwise than by filing a revised return. 2. That the appellant reserves the right to amend, alter or add to any ground(s) of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal ... Income Tax Act to accept the claim of the assessee which was not claimed by the assessee in his original or revised return of income. Therefore, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is in violation of the provision of section

DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 338/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Asim Chaudhury, Advocate

Section 115WSection 251

Sogo Computers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2038/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh P. Shet, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Padmameenakshi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 251Section 40

this regard, but the AO has rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not filed a revised return of income. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) with the submission that since the assessee has deducted the TDS and paid the same ... Taxman 1 (SC), the AO may not entertain a new claim which has not been raised in the original or revised return of income, but there is no restriction for the CIT(Appeals) or the Tribunal. It is settled position of law that the AO should examine the claim

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ashish Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4235/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

mainly aggrieved by deletion of penalty of Rs.3,59,84,728/- by Ld. CIT (Appeals) which was declared by the assessee in his revised return of income. 3. The brief facts qua the issue involved are that the assessee is an individual, who has filed his return of income u/s.139 ... September, 2009 declaring total income of Rs.69,26,801/-. After the period of three months, the assessee 2 I.T.A. No.4235/DEL/2013 suo-motto filed a revised return of income on 18.01.2010 declaring total income of Rs.11,38,33,301/-, thereby showing additional income of Rs.10,69,06500/-. The Assessing Officer

JCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Transfulf Frozen Food Containers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeal as well as the Cross

ITA 4081/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2009-10 Jcit, Vs. Transgulf Frozen Food Range-2, Containers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad. R-2/209, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. Pan: Aacct2067R Co No.151/Del/2014 (Ita No.4081/Del/2013) Assessment Years : 2009-10 Transgulf Frozen Food Containers Vs. Jcit, Pvt. Ltd., Range-2, R-2/209, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. Pan: Aacct2067R Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate & Shri Vipin Garg, Ca Deptt. By : Shri Amit Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate &

Section 145(3)Section 44A

milk & milk products, fruits and vegetables in canned bottles etc. The return was filed declaring a loss of Rs.2,09,04,537/-. Thereafter, a revised return was filed claiming certain amount of refund. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that net loss of Rs.2.60 crore

Mapex Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata

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

ITA 266/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am]

Section 80I

Panagarh-Palsit Section). The assessee filed its return of income on 24.09.2008 declaring a total income of Rs.11,13,95,302/-. Thereafter, it filed revised return declaring a total income of Rs.7,66,23,137/-. During the year, the assessee company had written back interest liability of Rs.3 ... same was initially shown “as income from other sources” in the original return and offered for tax. However, in the revised return the assessee has treated it as income from “business” activity and claimed deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act. Assessee also submitted that this interest was payable to Gamuda

Sri Surya Prakash Bagla, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir-VII, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 398/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 398/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Surya Prakash Bagla -Vs- Dcit, Central Circle-Vii, Kolkata [Pan: Aebpb 4558 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Tiwari, CIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 80D

Year 2010-11 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 15.9.2010 declaring total income of Rs 2,74,57,560/-. Later he filed a revised return of income on 27.12.2010 declaring revised total income of Rs 10,15,47,560/-. The main sources of income of the assessee was under ... filing the return of income for the assessee (being a partner in a firm) u/s 139(1) of the Act was 30.9.2010. Hence the revised return filed u/s 139(5) of the Act on 27.12.2010 was a valid revised return. A search was conducted

M/S Scrips N Scroll (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1262/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pardeep Kumar, JCIT (D.R)

return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12 on 29.9.2011 declaring income of Rs.2,84,47,673. On 6.7.2012, the assessee filed a revised return of income declaring income of Rs.2,80,47,333. In the return of income, the assessee, who owns two commercial buildings in Bangalore, (1) Plot

M/S. Niagara Hotels & Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1729/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. K. N. Chary, Jm Ita No. 1729/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 2160/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 5937/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Niagara Hotels & Builders Pvt. Vs Acit, Circle-13(1)/ Ltd., G- 6 & 7, Vikram Tower, Income Tax Officer, 16, Rajendra Place, Ward-13(2), New Delhi-110008 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0188P Assessee By : Sh. Shaily Gupta, Ca & Sh. Divyam Mittal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. P. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Order Dated 30.12.2013 & 22.08.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A)- Xvi, Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shaily Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. P. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 24

adjudicating the claim of allowance of Rs.2,27,379 on the ground that the claim was not made by filing a revised return, without appreciating that the embargo/ prohibition as per the case of Goetze India Limited: 154 Taxman 1 (SC) does not apply to the powers of the appellate

M/S. Niagara Hotels & Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-13(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5937/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Shaily Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. S. P. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 24