← 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

Rewas Ports Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 758/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr.P.Danial
Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)Section 57

year the assessee filed its return of income on 27.9.2008 by declaring a total income of Rs.10,21,31,760/-, thereafter the assessee filed revised return of income on 25.3.2010 declaring a total income of Rs.2,15,87,791/-. During the year the assessee was engaged in the development

Addl CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai vs. Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 4361/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Addl. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chamber-Iv, 222, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Reliance Industries Ltd.,3Rd Income Tax, Large Tax Floor, Maker Payer Unit, Mumbai Chamber-Iv, 222, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr5055K Appellant) .. Respondent) M/S. Reliance Industries Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd.,3Rd Floor, Maker Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

under normal provisions and Rs.132,44,13,65,353/- under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed a revised return on 12/11/2008 8 M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd., declaring total income of Rs.41,55,02,25,179/- under normal provisions and Rs.143,65,78,86,236/- under

Aditya Birla Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5732/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2008-09 M/S Aditya Birla Finance Acit-2(1), Limited (One Indiabulls R. No.575, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, M.K. Road, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400020 Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aabcb5769M ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Assessment Year-2008-09 Acit-2(1), M/S Aditya Birla Finance R. No.575, 5Th Floor, Limited (One Indiabulls बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Center, Tower-1, 18Th Floor, Vs. M.K. Road, Jupiter Mill Compound, 841, Mumbai-400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aabcb5769M (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) M/S Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.

Section 14ASection 260

assessee company is engaged in retails assets financing, investment and trade finances declared income of Rs.34,09,05,941/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return on March, 30, 2010 declaring income of Rs.34,37,59,455/-. While framing the assessment u/s M/s Aditya Birla Finance

V. Ramu, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Pudukkottai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/CHNY/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCITFor Respondent: 04.04.2017
Section 10Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)

first of all, have made a claim for exemption u/s.10(10C) in his "original return" of income filed on 30.10.2004 or by filing a "revised return" within the time allowed u/s.139(5) of the Act. He did neither. The claim for such exemption u/s.10( 10C) of the Act was made

Air India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 1767/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1767/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Air India Ltd. Dcit-5(1) Finance Bldg. Old Airport, Kalina, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Santacruz (E),Mumbai-400 029. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaaca 9213 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Assessee By: Shri D.J. Shukla सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 11.04.2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 12.12.2014 Of Cit(A)-10 Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Air Transportation Of Passengers & Cargo,Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.10.2005, Declaring Total Income At Rs.Nil.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 26/12/2007 Determin - Ing Its Income At Rs.44 . 33 Crores,Wherein, Interest Disallowance,U/S. 14A Of The Act,Was Made At Rs.12.83Lakhs. Matter Travelled Upto The Tribunal & Issue Was Set Aside To The File Of Ao To Decide The Issue Afresh.He Completed Assessment On 30.03.2013 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.33.19 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri D.J. ShuklaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

wholly owned by Government of India and is a national carrier, engaged in national/international air transportation of passengers and cargo. The assessee in its revised return declared loss of Rs.660,50,85,118/-. The assessee showed dividend income, during Financial Year 2006-07, amounting to Rs.3

ACIT 20(1), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Rubbers (Silvassa), Mumbai

ITA 1515/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParekhFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143Section 154Section 254(1)Section 40Section 40B

assessee was processed under section 143 (1). Later on it was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted a revised return on 06/ 05/2011,stating that there were certain mistakes in uploading original on filed return of income, that the assessee had wrongly shown disallowance ... 05/09/2010,that it applied for litigation the section 154 of the Act on 08/01/2011, that the Computer Processing Centre(CPC)advised to file a revised return of income, that accordingly revised return was filed on 06/05/2011. However,the AO did not accept the revised return and completed the assessment

Mrs. Rashmi Dhariwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 11 and 12 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed accordingly

ITA 2900/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishirashmi Dhariwal, Vs. Acit, Aashray Farms, Sub Po, Circle-23(1), Sawan Public School, Bhatti New Delhi Mines, Asola Village, New Delhi Pan:Aappd9702P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sr. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 23

giving the credit of TDS amounting to Rs.11,549/- deducted by Core Moulding Pvt Ltd and claimed by the Appellant through the revised Return of Income filed by her while at the same time bringing to tax the income declared by the Appellant in her revised Return of Income

Srf Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result we also set aside the appeal of the assessee against chargeability of interest under section 234C of the income tax act back to the file of the Ld

ITA 2181/DEL/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishisrf Limited, Vs. Dcit, Block-C, Sector-45, Gurgaon Circle-9(1), Pan: Aaacs0206P New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Srf Limited, Vs. Circle-9(1), Block-C, Sector-45, Gurgaon New Delhi Pan: Aaacs0206P (Appellant) (Respondent) Srf Limited, Vs. Addl Cit, Block-C, Sector-45, Gurgaon Circle-9(1), Cr Building, Pan: Aaacs0206P New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 208Section 234C

return of income on 30/11/2006 showing income of Rs. 1 279349010/– which was processed under section 143 (1) on 31/03/2008. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return of income on 31/03/2008 showing income of Rs. 1266091510/-. Assessee Company is engaged in business of industrial synthetics business wherein it manufactures nylon tyre cord ... income tax return originally due to inadvertence. Such claim was not accepted by the Ld. assessing officer as according to him, even in the revised return filed by the assessee on 31/03/2008 this was not claimed. He further referred to the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case

Snacko Bisc Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3043/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Mr. A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: 03.04.2017
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

business of manufacturing and selling of biscuits, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2005-06 on 31.10.2005 and subsequently filed revised return on 22.02.2006. The case was taken up for scrutiny under CASS and finally order U/s. 143(3) was passed on 14.12.2007 wherein the Ld.AO made

Shri.Nasir Pasha, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Mysore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2306/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, JCIT (D.R)
Section 44A

audited books of accounts. There is no quarrel on the point that the assessee can raise a fresh plea even without filing the revised return of income before the appellate authority but the said plea and claim shall be based on the entries recorded in the books of accounts

M/S. Rites Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 4149/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessee filed its e-Return declaring a total income of Rs. 175,65,69,970/- on 30/10/2007 and the same was followed by revised return which was filed on 27.3.2009 declaring income of Rs. 175,73,31,970/-. The same was processed

M/S. Global Televenture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1341/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

TIOL-198-SC-IT (that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return) is in conformity to this fundamental rule. Also, another ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment (that the power of the Tribunal under section ... under, "The question. raised in this appeal relates to whether the appellant assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. ……..The appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The deduction was disallowed by the Assessing Officer

M/S. Global Heritage Venture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1336/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

TIOL-198-SC-IT (that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return) is in conformity to this fundamental rule. Also, another ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment (that the power of the Tribunal under section ... under, "The question. raised in this appeal relates to whether the appellant assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. ……..The appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The deduction was disallowed by the Assessing Officer

M/S. Global Heritage Venture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1335/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

TIOL-198-SC-IT (that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return) is in conformity to this fundamental rule. Also, another ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment (that the power of the Tribunal under section ... under, "The question. raised in this appeal relates to whether the appellant assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. ……..The appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The deduction was disallowed by the Assessing Officer

M/S. Global Realty Creations Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1245/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

TIOL-198-SC-IT (that the Assessing Officer cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return) is in conformity to this fundamental rule. Also, another ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the same judgment (that the power of the Tribunal under section ... under, "The question. raised in this appeal relates to whether the appellant assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. ……..The appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The deduction was disallowed by the Assessing Officer

Gateway Terminals India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3595/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3595/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Ltd., Income Tax, 5(1), V. Gti House, Jawaharlal Nehru Aaykar Bhavan, Port, M.K. Road, Sheva, District Uran, Mumbai. Navi Mumbai – 400 707. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaccg1899E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kiran NisarFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

added to the book profit and disallowed in computation vide original return of filed with Revenue was subsequently withdrawn from MAT computation in the revised return of income filed with Revenue , and why the same should not be added to the Book Profit u/s 115JB of 1961 under MAT provisions ... book profit u/s 115JB of 1961 Act in the return of income originally filed with the Revenue , ITA 3595/Mum/2016 10 but in the revised return of income filed with Revenue, the assessee had withdrawn the above provision on the basis that the said amount is not provision or unascertained liability

Dci India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10(1) Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/KOL/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T. A.No. 126 /Kol/2017 Assessment Years: 2010-11 Dic India Ltd. Dcit, Cir-10(1), Kolkata -Vs- [Pan :Aabbcc0703C] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant Sri D. S. Damle, Fca Sri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit, Dr. For The Respondent Date Of Hearing 22.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 05.04.2017

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 92E

Amitabh Bachchan (supra) to impugn the order of the Tribunal. In the facts of the Supreme Court decision, the Respondent-Assessee had filed a revised return, claiming additional expenses. During the Assessment Proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the Assessee to furnish the details with regard to 32 I.T.A.No ... balance available, seeking to invoke Section 69(C) of the Act and treat the expenditure claimed as unexplained expenditure, the Assessee therein withdrew his revised return of income. Once this was done, the Assessing Officer accepted the same and did not make any further enquiry. The CIT in exercise

Cpl Tannery, Kolkata vs. ACIT, (CPC)/ITO, WD-33(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 485/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 485/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10 C.P.L. Tannery Acit(Cpc), Bangalore -Vs- [Pan :Aabf8416H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

find that the ld. CIT(A) upheld. the action of the ld. AO on the ground that the assessee had not filed any revised return of income to justify its claim. We would. like to mention here in this regard that it is well settled that the revenue cannot take

West Bengal Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

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

ITA 1467/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1467/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2010-2011) West Bengal Industrial Vs. Dcit, Circle-10, Kolkata, Infrastructure Development Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Corporation, Chowringhee Square, 5, Council House Street (3Rd Kolkata-700069 Floor), Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacw 3073 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, Fca Revenue By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.140/Xii/Cir-10/13-14, Dated 14.02.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 21.03.2013. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 On 13.10.2010 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.6,59,11,015/-. Subsequently The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2010-2011 On 31.3.2012 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.6,49,27,168/-. Assessee’S Case Was Processed U/S.143(1) On 24.05.2011 Accepting The Return Of Income. West Bengal Industrial Infrastructure Dev.Corp Later On Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Bhattacharya, FCAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80HSection 80l

return of income for the assessment year 2010-2011 on 13.10.2010 disclosing total income of Rs.6,59,11,015/-. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return of income for assessment year 2010-2011 on 31.3.2012 disclosing total income of Rs.6,49,27,168/-. Assessee’s case was processed u/s.143

Ramaben H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2587/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri G S Pannu, Am & Saktijit Dey, Jm I T A No. 2587 /Mum/2016 Assessment Year 2011 - 12 Mrs. Ramaben H Shah Acit Range 16(1) Indian House, Kemps Corner, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai 400 036 Pan : Aaops4957N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri B S Bist (DR)
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

alleged suppression of sales was confronted, the concerned person agreed to declare additional income of Rs.21,95,767/- and on that basis a revised return was filed on 29.03.2012, declaring income of Rs.25,80,531/-. During the assessment proceedings, the AO on the basis of material available on record, including ... proceedings, found that the gross profit on sales of Rs.1,10,78,861/- at 35% works out to Rs.38,77,601/-, whereas, in the revised return filed, the assessee has disclosed gross profit of Rs.34,71,671/- only. He therefore, was of the view that the assessee had suppressed gross