“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

M/S. the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ufj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3707/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 44CSection 90

from the stage it was left by the erstwhile AO. While scrutiny proceedings on the basis of the original return were in progress a revised return of income u/s 139(5) was filed by the assessee on 30.03.2007 which was taken up for continuing scrutiny proceedings afresh on the basis ... revised return of income. The Assessing Officer conducting the scrutiny proceedings issued notices u/s 143(2) of the Act along with questionnaire requisitioning certain details from the assessee on 28.09.2007. The revised return was taken as the basis for scrutiny proceedings by the Assessing Officer. The assessment was completed

Iljin Automotive Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 467/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CITFor Respondent: 21.06.2017

Section 143(3)

reasons. Firstly, in his view, the assessee’s claim was not admissible in the absence of being not made per a revised return. Two, even on merits, the additional depreciation could not be claimed on vehicles and office equipment. Proviso (C) to s. 32 (iia), providing for additional depreciation, makes

M/S Chogori Distribution Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4435/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Pratap Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ateeq Ahmed, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)

perusal of the impugned order, first of all it is noticed that the assessment has been completed under section 143(3), wherein the revised return filed by the assessee declaring loss of Rs.65,54,893/- has been accepted by the Assessing Officer after calling for various records from the assessee ... company filed its return digitally on 29.09.2012 declaring a loss of Rs.65,54,893/- in the computation of income. Thereafter, the assessee filed its revised return of income, declaring a loss of Rs.65,54,893/. Notice u/s 143(2) dated 08.08.2013 was served upon the assessee company selecting the case

M/S. at & T Global Network Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2538/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiat & T Global Network Services Dcit, (India) Pvt Ltd., Circle-2(1), Vs. Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, At & T Global Network Services Circle-2(1), (India) Pvt Ltd., Vs. New Delhi Vatika Lok-1, Block-A, Gurgaon Pan:Aafca8810L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, CAFor Respondent: Shri N C Swain CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36

erred in not taking cognizance of the fact that the aforesaid amount was suo moto offered to tax by the Appellant in the revised return of income filed for the subject assessment year and hence, such amount cannot be added again. 2. Ground No. 2 - Double disallowance on account ... excess depreciation claimed suo moto withdrawn in the revised return of income 2.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in disallowing excess tax depreciation claim bf Rs 22,89758 on import of capital goods. 2.2 On the facts and circumstances

ADIT (E), New Delhi vs. Fortune Society for Development and Promotion of International Business, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2

ITA 2698/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiadit(E), Vs. Fortune Society For Tc-Ii, New Delhi Development & Promotion Of International Business, G-4, Community Centre, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi Pan:Aaatf0849L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satish Khosla, Adv

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12Section 143Section 2

argument advanced on merits, he would raise a technical objection to the effect that in the present case, the claim was made under a revised return. The original return of income was filed only on 31.10.2007 beyond 31.10.2006 when it was due and as such would debar the consideration ... claim made in the revised return. 30. Records reveal that the original return was filed on 31.10.2007 and a revised return was filed on 19.2.2008. Notice under Section 148 was issued on 13.9.2010, in response to which, the assessee filed the original return dated 31.10.2007. In the course

Sanjay Chugh vs. ACIT Circle-37 (1)

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishidr. Sanjay Chugh, Vs. Acit, W-8, Ground Floor, Circle-37(1), Gk-Ii, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Amitosh Moitra, CA

Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

assessing officer was that that the Rs. 2252689/- was shown any increase in the income of the assessee. Pursuant to the revised return filed further after the date of survey operation. Consequent to that the notice under section 271 (1) © of the act Page 3 of 7 was issued ... estimate and there were no records available with the revenue. He further submitted that before the detection the assessee has filed a revised return, which was voluntarily in nature. He further submitted that the papacy bounded were pertaining to the assessment year 2002 and not to assessment year

ACIT, Cir-29, Kolkata vs. Prakash Kumar Mohta (HUF), Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 736/KOL/2015[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2009-10

Section 10(32)Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

occurred inadvertently. However, AO disregarded the contention of the assessee by observing as under:- i) Assessee did not rectify its mistake by filing revised return of income, in fact, the assessee claimed LTCG as exempted income in its return of income. ii) The assessee revised its computation of income only ... Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A).The assessee before Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the time of filing the revised return was expired and therefore assessee failed to revise the same. Assessee reiterated the submission as made before AO. However, Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission

DCIT, Circle-12, Kolkata vs. M/S. India Glycols Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1628/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 80CSection 80I

amounting to Rs.8,52,227,373/- claimed by the assessee at the time of assessment which was not claimed in the IT return or revised return.” 2. “That is the facts and in law of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the claim the assessee u/s. 80IA ... deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act for ₹8,52,27,373/- though same was not claimed either in the original return of income or revised return of income. 5. Briefly stated facts are that assessee is a limited company and engaged in manufacturing of glycols and other chemicals. During

ITO 27(2)(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Lenyadri Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and the cross appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3942/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

filed a return of income declaring total income at Nil on account of claim of exemption u/s 80P of the Act. In the revised return of income filed by the assessee, the gross total income as per the Income and Expenditure Account was declared

Asst CIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Golani Brothers, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3821/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 3821/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit -17(1), M/S Golani Brothers R. No. 117, 1St Floor, बिधम/ 303, Dlamal Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 29 New Marine Lines, Vs. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacfg5348R (अपीलाथी/Revenue) (प्रत्यथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru, D.R

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

contractor, builder, developer, had filed its return of income on 29.09.2011 showing total income of Rs.1,50,61,430/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 30.03.2013, declaring total income of Rs. 1,91,57,582/-. P a g e | 3 M/s Golani Brothers Vs. ACIT ... offered 50% of the purchases made from M/s Thane Steel Pvt. Ltd., amounting to Rs. 40,96,157/- as income in the revised return of income. However, the assessee failed to produce the entire documentary evidence as were called for by the A.O to support the genuineness of the purchase

Lenyadri Sahakari Pathpedhi Maryadit, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 27(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and the cross appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3371/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Mohd. Zammer Cutterwala, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 17(3), Mumbai

ITA 3314/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 54G

pipe lines, hand tools,wire cutter etc.,filed its return of income on 17/10/2011,declaring the total income of Rs.20.14 lakhs.Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 08/05/2012,declaring income at Rs.87.24 lakhs.The A.O, completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 21/ 01/ 2013,determining his income ... record the additional ground,raised by assessee. BRIEF FACTS: 3.The assessee has filed the original return in the month of October,2011.Later on,a revised return was filed on 08/05/2012,wherein he claimed a deduction of Rs.1.01 crores u/s. 54G of the 3314/M/15-Zammer Cutterwala Act.Initially the return was processed u/s.143

The ACIT, Circle -5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. P.G. Foils Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1343/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Nahta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr. D.R

Section 10(41)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

this case, return of income declaring income of Rs. 2,07,19,432/- was filed on 23rd September, 2009. Subsequently, the assessee has filed revised return of income on 23rd March, 2000 by declaring a loss of Rs. 2,07,19,432/- During the course of assessment proceedings, on perusal ... assessing officer has also noticed that assessee has claimed income from generation of wind mill as exempt u/s. 10(41) in the second revised return of income filed on 30th Sep, 2010. Thereafter in the third revised return of income the assessee has withdrawn its claim of exemption

D.C.I.T, Cir-8, Kolkata vs. M/S Newdeal Finance & Investment Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals of the revenue are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1964/KOL/2013[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2017AY 2003-2004

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 57

said interest expenditure u/s 57(iii) of the Act on the ground that the same was not made by the assessee by filing revised return and the interest expenditure even otherwise was not allowable as deduction under section 57(iii) being capital in nature having been incurred in connection with

Taurus Transport, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 13(2), Mumbai

The Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4979/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)Section 51

No/4356/Del/12 the case of CIT v. Suraj Bhan 294 ITR 481 (P&H) wherein pursuant to search & seizure operation, the assessee filed revised return declaring higher income and the Hon'ble Court had held that since the assessee surrendered additional income to buy peace of mind no inference of admission ... capital gains in view of exemption claimed under Section 10(38) of the Act. 4. On 29th October, 2007 the Respondent-assessee filed a revised return of income for the Assessment Year 2006-07,wherein an amount of Rs.1.62 Crores was returned as part of income totally aggregating to Rs.1.72

Taurus Transport, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 13(2), Mumbai

The Appeal is dismissed

ITA 4978/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 271(1)(c)Section 51

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly direct the AO to exclude value of such fringe benefit from the taxable value of fringe benefit. Ground No. 7 is accordingly allowed

ITA 5057/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5057/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcitcent. Circle-1(4), Room No.902, M/S. Grasim Industries Limited 9Th Floor,Old Cgo Building. M.K. Road Corporate Finance Division, Aditya Birla Church Gate,Mumbai-400 020. Centre, A-Wing, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Sk Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai-400 030 Pan:Aaacg 4464 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Vidyadhar- Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ronak G. Doshi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017 लेखा सद"य, राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Order Dtd.30.07.2015 Of The Cit(A)-13,Mumbai,The Assessee Had Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Filed The Fringe Benefit Tax(Fbt) On 29/09/2009,Showing Value Of Chargeable Fringe Benefit (Fb) At Rs.36.80 Crores.In The Return It Had Offered Various Expenses As Chargeable To Fbt.But,By Way Of A Note It Claimed That Fbt Was Payable On Such Expenditure.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S.115We(3)Of The Act,On 17.10.2011,Determining The Value Of The Chargeable Fb At Rs. 36,80,51,213/-.

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vidyadhar- DR

Section 115W

about direction of the First Appellate Authority(FAA)to exclude FB declared by the assessee itself in the original and revised return of FBT, filed u/s.115W of the Act. During the course of hearing it was brought to our notice that identical issue was dealt by the Tribunal, while deciding ... contention of the Ld. DR that if the assessee was not convinced with its return of fringe benefit, it should have filed a revised return failing 5057/M/15 M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. which the assessee should be precluded from raising such grounds of appeal. In support of his submissions

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sri Power Generation (India) Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1676/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Srikanth Varma, AdvocateFor Respondent: 29.08.2017

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

earlier years. During the course of the assessment proceedings, commenced by the issue of notice u/s. 143(2) on 21.08.2012, the assessee filed a revised return claiming depreciation at ". 1,25,34,533/–, including ". 1,06,05,262/– on power generating units. The balance ".19,29,271/– was on other ... against the Written Down Value (WDV) method (for other assets), in the original return. The Assessing Officer (AO), accepting the assessee’s revised return, disallowed the excess depreciation claimed per the original return, i.e., ".1,20,15,571/- (22620833 – 10605262), holding as under: ‘2.1 The assessee had returned a loss

DCIT, Chennai vs. Sri Power Generation (India) Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1504/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Srikanth Varma, AdvocateFor Respondent: 29.08.2017

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

ACIT, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 294/CTK/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.266, 162&217/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-07&2005-06) Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2), Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Bhubaneswar, Odisha 384, Kiit Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024, Odisha "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatk 3103 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.108&294/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05&2006-07) Acit, Circle-2(2), Vs. Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Bhubaneswar, Odisha Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, 384, Kiit Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024, Odisha "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatk 3103 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.27&42/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-05 & 2006-07) Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2), Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Bhubaneswar, Odisha 384, Kiit Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024, Odisha "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatk 3103 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh,Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: & Co No.42&27/Ctk/2014 These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh,CITDR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 254

jurisdiction on you. 7. Ld. AR filed letter dated 20.1.2011 in compliance to notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 22.12.2010 to treat the revised return filed on 5.3.2007 as a due compliance of return filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act & CO No.42&27/CTK/2014 and placed a copy