← 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

ACIT, Sambalpur vs. M/S Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd, Sambalpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 396/CTK/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(1), Sambalpur Vs. M/S Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Jagriti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Citdr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar/N.Kedia, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, In Appeal No.0403/2012-13, Dated 23.05.2013, Passed U/S.147/143(3)/250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2008-2009, Wherein The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. Whether The Learned First Appellate Authority Was Justified In Relying On Writ Cases Ignoring The Fact That Specific Findings In Writ-Petitions Can Not Be Straightaway Applied To Other Cases. 2. Whether The Learned Appellate Authority Was Justified To Hold That There Is Change In Opinion Of The Assessing Officer Regarding Admissibility / Inadmissibility Of Expenditure While Proceeding U/S.147 Of The 1.T. Act,1961 As Compared To His Findings In The Original Assessment Order. 3. Whether The Ld. First Appellate Authority Was Justified To Delete The Disallowance Of Rs.696.10 Lakhs Made By The Assessing Officer Towards 'Prior Period Expenses', Totally Ignoring The Findings Of The Assessing Officer. 4. Whether The Learned First Appellate Authority Was Justified To Delete The Disallowance Of Rs.631.34 Lakhs Made By The Assessing Officer Towards `Unpaid Statutory Liability' Under Section 43B Of The I.T. Act,1961, Totally Ignoring The Findings Of The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri S.S.Poddar/N.Kedia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CITDR
Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 43B

filed the return of income electronically for the assessment year 2008-2009 on 16.10.2008 with total income of Rs.239418.18 lacs and also filed revised return of income on 26.05.2009 disclosing taxable income at Rs.238828.18 lakhs and the assessment was completed assessing total income of Rs.297836.50 lakhs. The AO on perusal

Ashtvinayaka Construction, Navi Mumbai vs. JCIT Cir 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3883/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri T A Khan
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

before the AO during the assessment proceedings but AO rejected the same on the ground that the claim is not made by way of revised return ... further stated that the claim of assessee of TDS on VAT rightly rejected by the AO as it was not made by way of revised return of income. The ld DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing even a part of the said amount and prayed

DCIT Cir 28(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Ashtavinayaka Construction, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3821/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri T A Khan
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

before the AO during the assessment proceedings but AO rejected the same on the ground that the claim is not made by way of revised return ... further stated that the claim of assessee of TDS on VAT rightly rejected by the AO as it was not made by way of revised return of income. The ld DR submitted that the ld CIT(A) has erred in allowing even a part of the said amount and prayed

M/S. Religare Securities Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4644/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Religare Securities Ltd, Vs. Dcit, D3, P3B, District Centre, Saket, Circle-21(1), New Delhi-110017 Cr Building, New Delhi Pan:Aaacf1952D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 28Section 37(1)

securities business, filed its return of income for assessment year 2010 – 11 on 05/10/2010 declaring total income of Rs. 1009305722/– and filed revised return on 27/03/2012 declaring total income of Rs. 1002192108/–. 4. In the computation of the total income assessee has claimed an amount

Sh. Ravi Kant Tyagi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 1 and additional ground of the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2251/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiravi Kant Tyagi, Vs. Ito, Flat No. 36, Sadbhawana Apartment, Ward-46(1), 13, Ip Extn, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Abtpt3527G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA
Section 143Section 54

officer was further of the view that as the claim of the assessee was not found in the original return of income and no revised return was also filed by the assessee, capital gain is chargeable to tax, whereas the exemption deduction under section 54 of the income

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mct India Infotech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6071/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

since the provisions of Section 10A and 10B are similar. Further he submitted that the moment the assessee realized this, they filed revised return of income withdrawing the claim for deduction u/s 10B of the Act, as such, the deletion of penalty by the Ld.CIT (A) is proper and cannot

Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3259/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 50

normal provisions as well as under section 115JB of the Act as the original return with only making higher claim of TDS in the revised return. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings , the assessee filed a revised computation of income ... claiming therein several additions and deductions which as per the provisions of the Act inadvertently not claimed either in original or revised return of income. The AO after considering the revised computation during the assessment proceedings and after calling the various details information and explanations as to various items contributing

Reliance Hypermart Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3765/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am M/S. Reliance Hypermart Ltd., Vs. Ito 8(1)(2) Now Merged With Reliance Mittal Court, Commercial Land & Nariman Point Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai – 400 020 5Th Floor, Court House Lokmanya Tilak Marg Dhobi Talao Mumbai – 400 002 Pan/Gir No.Aacce0622K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154

Income Tax Return (ITR) was filed on 31/03/2012. 4 M/s. Reliance Hypermart Ltd., 7. In order to give effect to the above scheme, a revised return of income was filed declaring a loss of Rs.14,17,785/- and a refund of Rs.45,03,858/- on account ... date for A.Y. 2011-12 on 30.09.2011, claiming IDS of Rs.44,18,554/-and after the accounting entries on merger have been completed, a revised return of income was filed on 31.03.2012, claiming TDS of 45,03,858/-. in which only the income and expenditure of retained undertakings were reported

DCIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Remi Edelstahi Tubulars Ld, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5841/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhremi Edelstahl Tubulars Limited Dcit, Circle-13(3)(1), 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Rajendra Mechanical Industries Ltd.), Plot No. 11, M.K. Road, Came Industrial Estate, Walbhat Vs. Mumbai-400020. Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 Pan: Aaacr0408G (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Circle-13(3)(1), Remi Edelstahl Tubulars Limited 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Rajendra Mechanical M.K. Road, Industries Ltd.), Plot No. 11, Came Vs. Mumbai-400020. Industrial Estate, Walbhat Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 Pan: Aaacr0408G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

under the normal provision and book profit of Rs. 5,44,06,979/- under section 115JB of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income declaring total income and claimed brought forward loss of Rs. 3,55,00,440/-. The assessment was completed under section

Remi Edelstahl Tubulars Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 13(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5767/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhremi Edelstahl Tubulars Limited Dcit, Circle-13(3)(1), 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Rajendra Mechanical Industries Ltd.), Plot No. 11, M.K. Road, Came Industrial Estate, Walbhat Vs. Mumbai-400020. Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 Pan: Aaacr0408G (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Circle-13(3)(1), Remi Edelstahl Tubulars Limited 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Rajendra Mechanical M.K. Road, Industries Ltd.), Plot No. 11, Came Vs. Mumbai-400020. Industrial Estate, Walbhat Road, Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 Pan: Aaacr0408G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

under the normal provision and book profit of Rs. 5,44,06,979/- under section 115JB of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income declaring total income and claimed brought forward loss of Rs. 3,55,00,440/-. The assessment was completed under section

Dinesh Kumar Vijay, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 58/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Arpit Vijay (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Gujarat) “After the notice dated 24.02.1986 was served upon the assessee, he came out of his slumber, started acting honest and submitted the revised return. It was not the case of the assessee either before the Assessing Officer or before the Tribunal that much before service of the show- cause ... notice, honesty prevailed upon him and to the call of good conscience, he filed the revised return. The revised return in fact, was a reaction to the notice issued by the Assessing Officer on 24.02.1986.” The assessee has further claimed that it has offered bonafide explanation. The fact of assessee

Iqbal Ahmed Khalilamed Subedar, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(2), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 4896/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri. S.C. Tiwari & RutejaFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik(CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 40A(3)

person— (a) fails to make the return required [under sub-section (1) of section 139] and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of that section, or (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under

Cricket Club of India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6937/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

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

Section 10(15)Section 12ASection 25

press the ground No.1(a) relating to royalty receipts, as the assessee itself has offered the same in the revised return of income filed for second time. Hence the said ground is dismissed as not pressed. 2 M/s. Cricket Club of India Pvt. Limited 4. The Ground No.1(b) relates

Iqbal Ahmaed Khalil Ahmed Subedar, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 2135/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri. S.C. Tiwari & RutejaFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik(CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 40A(3)

person— (a) fails to make the return required [under sub-section (1) of section 139] and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of that section, or (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Central; Bank of India, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 910/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.8581/Mum/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Deputy Commissioner Of Central Bank Of India Income Tax 2(1) Central Office बनाम/ Central Accounts Deptt. Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Chandermukhi, 4Th Floor Room No. 575, 5Th Floor Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacc-2498-P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 153/2012 [Arising Out Of Ita No.8581/Mum/2010 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1999-2000) Central Bank Of India Deputy Commissioner Of Central Office Income Tax 2(1) बनाम/ Central Accounts Deptt. Aaykar Bhavan Chandermukhi, 4Th Floor Room No. 575, 5Th Floor Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacc-2498-P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

Assessment Years-1999-2000, 2002-03, 2003-04 provisions as against returned loss of Rs.126.25 crores filed by the assessee on 29/03/2001 as per revised return of income. The book profits within the meaning of Section 115JA has been computed at Rs.48.90 crores as against book loss of Rs.152.72 crores ... claimed refund of Rs.131.75 crores as per original return of income filed on 31/10/2002. The refund has been revised upwardly to Rs.134.28 crores in revised return of income filed on 26/03/2004. In the meantime, refund has been determined / granted as per intimation u/s 143(1) dated 25/07/2003 at Rs.145.75 crores

Mahavir Prasad Jaipuria, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6643/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143Section 271Section 271ASection 274

return of income filed on 31/07/2012, the assessee had offered a total income of Rs. 10,26,175/- to tax. Subsequently, he filed a revised return of income on 07/06/2013 disclosing total income of Rs. 13,26,175/-. During the course of search and post search investigation, the assessee

Atc Telecom Tower Corporation P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2706/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2706/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Atc Telecom Tower Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit-9 (Earlier Known As Essar Telecom Aayakar Bhavan, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 403, 4Th Floor, Skyline Icon Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Near Mittal Industrial Estate Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaeca9823E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Counsel &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

return of income for Assessment Year: 2008-09 on 27.09.2008, declaring a loss of Rs.48,93,08,013/-. The assessee thereafter filed a revised return of income on 30.03.2010, declaring a loss of Rs.42,84,44,001/-. The revised return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such

Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai vs. CIT -40, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 647/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 647/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Shah Rukh Khan, Vs. The Acit, 44, Mannat, B.J. Road, Central Circle-29, Mumbai Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahpk3293L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiro Rai (Ar) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Rajguru (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajguru (DR)
Section 142Section 143Section 14ASection 288

emerge i.e., 1st. whether the assessee can claim any deduction in respect of statement already made in his return of income without filing any revised return and 2nd.whether on merit the assessee is entitled for the deduction claimed? However, in our considered opinion the only second question requires adjudication

ACIT, Alwar vs. Supreme Cylinders Pvt. Ltd., Alwar

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 716/JPR/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2017AY 1998-99
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal (C.A)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

determining the income at Rs. 2,16,15,282/- against the income returned by the assessee in the revised return at Rs. 2,14,86,391/-. While framing the assessment, the AO made the addition of Rs. 79,82,382/- on account of inflation of purchases

D.Shantha, Villupuram vs. ITO, Villupuram

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1829/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Nataraja, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

admitting a total income of Rs. 1,92,450/- and an agricultural income of Rs. 1,24,000/-. Further, she filed a revised return on 05.03.2010 admitting a total income of Rs. 7,25,460/- and an agricultural income of Rs. 1,24,000/-. The AO completed the assessment ... admitting a total income of Rs. 1,92,450/- and an agricultural income of Rs. 1,24,000/-. Further, she filed a revised return on 05.03.2010 :-19-: ITA Nos. 1593, 1828 & 1829& 1803/Mds/2016 admitting a total income of Rs. 7,25,460/- and an agricultural income