← 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, Chennai vs. Sri Muthukumaran Educational Trust, Chennai

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

ITA 113/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 11(5)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Assessing Officer levied penalty on the difference between the income originally returned by the assessee pursuant to notice u/s. 153A of the Act, and revised returns filed when the assessments were reaching finality. As per the ld. Assessing Officer assessee had disclosed income from anonymous donation in the revised returns

ITO, Tuticorin vs. N.Rajasekaran, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands allowed

ITA 1446/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. M.S. Nethrapal, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri.V.S. Jayakumar, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 203A

assessment year declaring income of "7,95,180/- on 30.09.2009. Upon receipt of a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, assessee filed a revised return on 14.10.2010 declaring income of "9,43,560/-. The assessment was thereafter completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2011 after ... notice u/s. 148 of the Act, assessee filed 6. another return on 26.04.2014 declaring very same income which was shown by him in the revised return filed on 14.10.2010. Assessee also objected to the reopening through a letter dated 26.09.2014. As per ITA No. 1446/Mds/2016. :- 5 -: the assessee receipt

Metal Rolling Works Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-47, Mumbai

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

ITA 1857/MUM/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2002-03

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ravish Sood (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 154Section 2(47)(v)Section 269U

shown in the certificate dated 26.11.2001 issued u/s 269UL(3) of the Act. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised return and claimed therein that the capital gains shall not be assessable in AY 2002-03, i.e., the year under consideration, but assessable

DCIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Suratchandra B. Thakkar -HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 424/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.424/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit 24(2) C-13, 6Th Floor, बिधम/ Surat Chandra B. Thakkar- Huf Pratyakshakar Bhavan Vs. 67-A, Vithal Nagar Chs Rd Bandra (E) Mumbai 12, Jvpd Scheme Juhu Pin: 400051 Mumbai Pin: 400049 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahto788G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishwas Mundhe (Dr) Revenue By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.03.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.11.2013 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- (I) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Had No Jurisdiction To Refer The Case For Valuation To The M/S. Surat Chandra B. Thakkar Huf

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mundhe (DR)For Respondent: None
Section 120(4)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(2)Section 54F

tune of Rs.10,24,87,079/- on 27,09,2009. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 12.08.2010. A revised return of income was also filed on 17.03.2011 wherein the Assessee has made a note of investment of under Section u/s54F. The returned income remained unchanged ... revised return of income. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 19.08.2010 was issued and served upon the Assessee. Thereafter, the case was assigned to the present charge(who passed the assessment order) u/s120(4)(b) of the Act vide

M/S.Cpg Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-

ITA 1596/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazcpg Consultants India Pvt. Ltd., 21/30, Prestige Craig House, Craig Park Layout, M.G Road, Bengaluru. . Appellant Aaccp8208P. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 5(1)(1), Bengaluru. . Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Swapna Das, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 36(2)

assessment proceedings but was neither made in the original return of income filed for asst. year 2011-12 nor by way of a revised return of income, the same was rejected by the AO. The ld CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s claim for being allowed the write ... Goetze (India) (284 ITR 323), since the said claim was neither made in the original return of income filed or by way of revised return of income. It is submitted that the assessee had made a provision for bad and doubtful debts amounting to Rs.4

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

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 6441/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita Nos. 6438 & 6439/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Smt. Mehar Anand, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afepa9193B Ita Nos. 6440 & 6441/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Sh. Harveer Singh Kalra, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afbpk6171Q Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 Order These Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 07.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

provision. The provisions applicable whether it is an assessment under section 153A or a normal assessment under section 143(3) or assessment of a revised return of income for levying penalty are exactly the same. At the cost of repetition we would like to quote the provisions of section ... submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the authorities below and further submitted that the AO had accepted the revised return filed by the assessee u/s 153A of the Act and merely by virtue of the fact that such return shows a higher income, penalty

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Mehar Anand, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 6438/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita Nos. 6438 & 6439/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Smt. Mehar Anand, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afepa9193B Ita Nos. 6440 & 6441/Del/2016 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 & 2011-12 Acit, Vs Sh. Harveer Singh Kalra, Central Circle-14, A-29, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afbpk6171Q Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 Order These Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 07.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

provision. The provisions applicable whether it is an assessment under section 153A or a normal assessment under section 143(3) or assessment of a revised return of income for levying penalty are exactly the same. At the cost of repetition we would like to quote the provisions of section ... submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the authorities below and further submitted that the AO had accepted the revised return filed by the assessee u/s 153A of the Act and merely by virtue of the fact that such return shows a higher income, penalty

M/S. Mercantile Capital & Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result ground NO. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed directing the ld Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs

ITA 4735/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishimercantile Capital & Financial Vs. Addl. Cit, Services Pvt. Ltd, Range-6, New Delhi G-71, World Trade Centre, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi Pan:Aaacm5551D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sailesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)

applying the provisions of Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in its revised return of income filed on 29.03.2013. The assessee submitted the computation of disallowance vide para No. 3.3 of the order at Rs. 4628867/-. However, the ld Assessing Officer rejected the computation of the disallowance ... made the balance disallowance of Rs. 420530/- to the total income and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 12756222/- against the revised return income of Rs. 12356720/-. Assessee preferred appeal before the ld CIT(A) unsuccessfully and therefore, assessee in appeal before

Late K.Sengoda Gounder, L/R Shri S.Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Salem

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

ITA 306/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

Section 10(37)

323/157 Taxman 1 (SC) rejected the alternate claim made by the assessee, since the claim for exemption was not made through revised return of income. 4.0 The assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee following the decision ... whether the assessee is entitled for the claim of exemption u/s.10(37) which was neither claimed in his original return nor filed a revised return. I have perused the Assessment Order and written submissions of the Authorized Representative, it is seen that the assessee did not make his claim

Bipin Sagar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT WD 21(1), Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6766/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri. Kailash Kanojiya
Section 24Section 24aSection 271

no.6766/Mum./2013 5. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. We find that in this case the assessee has filed revised return of income withdrawing the deduction claimed under section 24a. No case has been made out that this revision was done on account of any query

Sri Namballa Dharma Rao, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Bhubaneswar

ITA 402/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singhsri Namballa Dharma Rao, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (3), Brpl, 5Th Floor, Bhubaneswar. Ipicol Annex Building, Janpath, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Bhadna , ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Pradhan, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

tune of Rs.4,542/-. After issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), the assessee filed revised return declaring income of Rs.42,99,950/- as against total income of Rs.41,01,946/- declared in the original return. Rejecting the claim raised ... thereafter the case was subjected to scrutiny and on issuance of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, the assessee filed a revised return to the tune of Rs.42,99,950/- and then assessment u/s 143(3) was completed by determining the total income at Rs.50,06,490/-. 6. Assessee

Nitin Pal Singh, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals filed by the respective assessee are allowed

ITA 214/JPR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 May 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar GuptaFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl.CIT)
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

capital gains of Rs. 368,526 on which taxes were duly paid and reported in the return of income. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return wherein the cost of the land was taken as Rs. 1,12,769/- as against Rs. 17,83,600/- shown in the original return ... claimed at Rs. 14,21,878/- as against Rs. 4,79,333/- shown in the original return. The Assessing Officer did not accept revised return stating that since the original return was filed beyond the time limit for filing the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, the assessee

West Gujarat Expressway Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 664/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Gujarat Expressway Circle 14(3)(1) Ltd. 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Marg Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

Supreme Court in the case of ‘Goetze (India) Limited v. CIT’ (2006) 157 Taxman 1, regarding 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

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. West Gujarat Expressway Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 634/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Gujarat Expressway Circle 14(3)(1) Ltd. 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent West Gujarat Expressway Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, The Il & Fs Financial Centre, Circle 14(3)(1) Plot No. C-22, G Block Bkc 453 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Marg Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pin No. Aaacw5862D Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)

Supreme Court in the case of ‘Goetze (India) Limited v. CIT’ (2006) 157 Taxman 1, regarding 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

Inducto Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2555/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2006-07 Inducto Steel Ltd. Acit, 156, Maker Chamber Vi, Cc-38, बनाम/ 220, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Nariman Point, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci1045E

Section 14A

engaged in the business of ship breaking, manufacturing of industrial gases, finance and investment in shares, declares income of Rs.83,83,737/-. Subsequently, revised return was filed by the assessee to give effect of amalgamation of Haryana Industrial Gases Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Inducto Techno Casting Pvt. Ltd. with

Shri.K.G.Shivarudraiah, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Bangalore

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

ITA 2045/BANG/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Biju, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT)-3, Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54F

Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd., restrict the power of the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction which is not claimed in the return / revised return, and such restriction cannot be extended to the Appellate Authority as clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself in this very decision ... Para 6.2 of his order by saying that since it was not claimed in the return of income or by filing a revised return, this claim is not allowable. He submitted that this judgment of Hon'ble apex court does not impinge the powers of CIT(A) and therefore

Elemention Health & Sports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5668/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 32(1)Section 37(1)

said contention should have been raised by the appellant company either in its return u/s 139(1) of the Act or byway of a revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act. 2. For that the Id CIT (A) erred in holding that the aforesaid expenditure having been shown

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Juhi Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3626/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S Juhi Investment Co. Pvt. Income Tax, Vs. Ltd., Circle-4(1), L-77, Lajpat Nagar-Ii, Room No. 407, C.R. Building, New Delhi I.P. Estate, (Pan:Aaacj2146B) New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Surrender in closing stock of Rs. 60,58,065 made by the assessee company vide its letter dated 8.8.2006 tantamount to filing of a revised return, which is not permissible as the due date of filing the same u/s 139(5) i.e. 31.3.2006 has already elapsed. The assessee is well ... aware of this fact and that is why instead of filing a revised return, it has filed a revised computation of income. The provisions of the I.T. Act do not extend any credibility to a computation of income if it is not accompanied by the Income-tax return

The ITO-2(2), Indore vs. Smt. Mohan Bai Pokhrana, Indore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 468/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.468/Ind/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 54BSection 54ESection 54F

under section 54F and balance long-term capital gain of Rs. 4,35,467/- has been offered for tax vide revised return of income filed on 10-06-2011. This deduction of Rs. 4,35,467/- was claimed under section 54B of the Act, during the course of assessment proceedings

Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, it cannot be said to be case of concealment of income and the penalty to this extent stand deleted

ITA 141/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

which includes the additional income of Rs. 25,00,000/- disclosed during the search operation and also in the revised return of income filed earlier on 27.12.2010. Thereafter, the AO completed the assessment u/s 143 read with section 153A of the Act making further addition ... which an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was surrendered and the return of income disclosing such income was filed on 27.12.2010 ( revised return)/21.06.2011 (return u/s 153A after the due date of filing return of income u/s 139(1) had elapsed on 31.07.2010. Thus, it is a fact that