“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.

Madhya Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

241 ITR 124 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

A penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied if an assessee files a revised return to buy peace and avoid litigation, and the revenue accepts this without objection.

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.

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Infosys Limited, Bengaluru

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

ITA 245/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das – CIT - DR

Section 1Section 10ASection 155Section 250

income for AY 2019-20 was filed on 29.11.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 12605,13,60,050/-. Subsequently, the assessee company filed the Revised return on 31.07.2020 declaring total income of Rs.12581,73,21,950/-. The said return was again revised on 30- 11-2020 with total income

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1532/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt Srinandini Das – CIT - DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

income for AY 2020-21 was filed on 14-02-2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 12979,20,36,860/-. Further the revised return for the year was filed on 31-03-2021 with total income of Rs. 12847,37,71,100/-. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1531/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt Srinandini Das – CIT - DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1530/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt Srinandini Das – CIT - DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 80A(5)

original return of income was filed on 30.11.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 8501,13,54,830/-. Further, the Revised return of income was filed on 31.03.2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 8456,46,03,950/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee company was selected for scrutiny ... year 2007-08 had not claimed any exemption under Section 10B of the Act. This deduction was claimed for the first time in the revised return. On being denied this claim, constitutional vires of Sub-section 5 to Section 80A, as inserted by Finance Act, 2009 and 4th proviso

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 881/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 1Section 10ASection 155Section 250

income for AY 2019-20 was filed on 29.11.2019 declaring total income of Rs.12605,13,60,050/-. Subsequently, the assessee company filed the Revised return on 31.07.2020 declaring total income of Rs.12581,73,21,950/-. The said return was again revised on 30- 11-2020 with total income of Rs.12461

Jubilant Foodworks Limited, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida

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

ITA 184/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2022-23 Jubilant Food Works Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited Plot No. 1A Sector Income Tax, Circle – 5 (1) 16 A Gautam Buddha Nagar (1), Noida Uttar Pradesh 201301 Pan No. Aabcd 1821 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K M Gupta, Advocate Ms. Shruti Khimata, Ca Respondent By Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit Dr

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80J

income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 30-11-2022 declaring total income of Rs.5,59,32,66,057/-. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act on 28-12- 2022 declaring the same income. The assessee received an intimation order ... audit report filed for the A.Y.2022-23. The assessee did not file the Form 10DA with the original return of income but filed with the revised return of income. He also submitted that the requirement of furnishing auditors report in the Form 10DA for the deduction u/s 80JJAA

ACIT, Cir-1(1), Rajkot vs. Shri Rajkot District Co Operative Bank Ltd, Rajkot

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 188/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.188/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot Limited Room No.502, Aayakar Bhawan, Jilla Bankbhavan, Kasturba Road, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot- Opp: Chaudhary High School, 360001 Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaar0564K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.Dr : 09/06 /2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08 /2025

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viii)

worked out above. With prejudice, it may also be pointed out that the assessee has not filed revised return as such claim of enhanced deduction is not acceptable. Further reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. [(2006) (157 Taxman ... wherein it is held that the assessee cannot claim deduction other than filing a revised return. Reliance is also placed on decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot in the case of ACIT Ghandhi Dham vs. The Kutch District Co-op. Bank Ltd. wherein following the decision

Devasakayam Aangilappalli Paripalana Sabai, Madurai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Madurai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 933/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:933/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Years: 2018-19 Devasakayam Aangilappalli Income Tax Officer, Paripalana Sabai, Vs. Exemptions Ward, No.11, Devasakayam Matriculation Madurai. Hr.Sec.School, Pasumalai, Madurai – 625 004. [Pan:Aaatd-0964-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Akash, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Kumar Chandan, J.C.I.T

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

section (1) of Section 139 of the Act, whereas, in the facts of the said case the assessee filed such undertaking along with the revised return under Sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the Act and in such facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the twin conditions

Dr.Rangasamy Sudha, Erode vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Erode

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1007/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1007/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2023-24 The Income-Tax Officer, Dr. Rangasamy Sudha, 448, Maragathavalli Hospital, Vs. Ward 1(1), Erode. E.V.N. Road, Erode – 638 009. [Pan:Ajcps-0749-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Manickasundaram, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. Manickasundaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(1)Section 80CSection 80T

follows: “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 assessment year in question was 1995-96. The return was filed on 30-11-1995 by the appellant for the assessment year ... does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited

Prakash Narayanan, Bengaluru vs. DCIT Circle 3(3)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 969/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Murali Mohan, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 90

interest of justice and equity.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his revised return of income on 28/03/2019 declaring a gross total income of Rs. 1,62,94,120/-. 3. The assessee had included his income from salary and income ... said notice, the assessee has furnished the details. The AO examined the submissions made by the assessee and accepted the income returned in the revised return but granted the relief u/s 90 as per the original return. The assessee had disputed the relief claimed

Shri Kutch Visa Oswal Jain Derawasi Sangh Bidada, Mandvi vs. The ITO Exemption, Ward (1), Rajkot.

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

ITA 160/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 160/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Kutch Visa Oswal Jain Derawasi The Ito Exemption, Ward (1), Vs. Sangh Bidada, P.O. Bidada, Rajkot. New Aayakar Bhavan, Race Mandvi 370435 Course Ring Road, Rajkot 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabts0457L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. (DR)

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

claimed by the Appellant u/s 11(2) of the Act in the original as well as revised return of income by not considering revised Form 10 filed by the Appellant. 3. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits and thus failed to appreciate ... could not have been denied by CPC u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act when revised Form 10 was duly filed along with revised return of income. 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi failed to take cognizance of revised Form 10 during appellate proceedings by exercising his co-terminus

Mahavir Trading Company, Parwanoo vs. ACIT, Circle, Parwanoo

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 435/CHANDI/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 435 /Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) M/S Mahavir Trading Company Acit-Circle Parwanoo बनाम/ Booth No. 18 Sector-1 Himachal Pardesh 173220 Vs. Parwanoo (Hp) 173220 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefm-8949-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Neeraj Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of : 04-08-2025 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2005-06 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Shimla [Cit(A)] Dated 30-01-2020 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) On 28-12-2007. This Is Second Round Of Appeal. In The First Round, The Assessment Was Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order Dated 26-05-2008. However, The Matter Was Remanded Back By Tribunal Vide Ita No.795/Chd/2009

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld.Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)

assessee-firm made surrender to make up for discrepancies in stock, cash, creditors and under other misc. heads. The assessee, in its revised return of income, admitted additional income of Rs.20.91 Lacs and accordingly, Ld. AO proceeded toadd back the remaining amount of Rs.9.09 Lacs to the income

Hindustan Spimg Engineering Private Limited, Trichy vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Trichy

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1344/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ankita S. Shah, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36Section 43B

original return of income for AY 2018-19 on 30.01.2018 declaring a total income of Rs. 60,15,700/-. The assessee subsequently filed the revised return of income on 09.11.2019 enhancing the total income of Rs. 79,66,160/- by disallowing the employee contribution towards the ESI & PF not remitted ... assessee submitted that while processing the return under section 143(1), the CPC has considered the original return of income and not the revised return of income. The assessee further submitted that in the revised return of income that assessee has already disallowed the employee contribution towards

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3103/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

Page | 15 ITA No. 2415, 3102, 3103/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2018-19, 2019-20 Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai proceedings other than by way of revised return, held that it was not admissible since the same is otherwise not allowable and not in the nature of an apparent mistake. Accordingly, this ... alternative ground no.2, we observe that the main reason for denial of deduction by the authorities below is that assessee has not filed revised return of income to make rightful claim. The ld. AR heavily relied on the judgment of hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 3(3), Mumbai vs. Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3102/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri R.A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

assessment Page 15 ITA No. 2415, 3102, 3103/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2018-19, 2019-20 Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai proceedings other than by way of revised return, held that it was not admissible since the same is otherwise not allowable and not in the nature of an apparent mistake. Accordingly, this ... alternative ground no.2, we observe that the main reason for denial of deduction by the authorities below is that assessee has not filed revised return of income to make rightful claim. The ld. AR heavily relied on the judgment of hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

Phulchand Exports Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2415/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Shankarlal Jain & Shri Satish Kumar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 36(1)(iii)

Page 15 ITA No. 2415, 3102, 3103/Mum/2025 Α.Υ. 2018-19, 2019-20 Phulchand Exports Private Limited, Mumbai proceedings other than by way of revised return, held that it was not admissible since the same is otherwise not allowable and not in the nature of an apparent mistake. Accordingly, this ... alternative ground no.2, we observe that the main reason for denial of deduction by the authorities below is that assessee has not filed revised return of income to make rightful claim. The ld. AR heavily relied on the judgment of hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

Sabbirahmed Basirahmed Shaikh, Dabhoi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1)(7), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2021-22 Sabbirahmed Basirahmed Shaikh Ito, Ward-4(1)(7) 5-Jantanagar Society Vs. Vadodara. O/S.Mahudi Bhagol At & Post Dabhoi Pan : Agtps 9809 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bhupendra C. Mehta, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh Sr.DR

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 89(1)

vide intimation dated 24.03.2022, accepting the returned income and issuing refund of Rs.46,720/-. 2.2 Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income (RROI) under section 139(5) of the Act on 26.03.2022, declaring a revised total income of Rs.32,31,770/-, consisting of gross salary income of Rs.32 ... retirement, as against the exemption of Rs.3,00,000/- granted by the employer and reflected in the Form 16. The CPC, however, processed the revised return under section 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 30.11.2022 and made an adjustment under clause (a) of section 143(1) by disallowing

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Private Limited, Coimbatore

ITA 246/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 245 & 246/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.Ο No.21/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.245/Chny/2025] The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore Vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.3, Hi Tech Engineering & Service Sector Sez, Annur Road, Village Kittampalayam & Karumathampatty, Coimbatore – 641 659. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross Objector) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.Cit निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashik Shah, Ca & Ms. Soundariya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2025 आदेश /O R D Er Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 Both Dated 28.11.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter The 'Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2013-14. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection For

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 144C(4)Section 250Section 92C

customers acting as intermediary between entrepreneur and customers. For the assessment year 2012-13, original return of income was filed on 29.11.2012 and subsequently, revised return was filed on 31.10.2013 declaring loss of Rs.22,25,56,267/-. The assessment was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Private Limited, Coimbatore

ITA 245/CHNY/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 245 & 246/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O No.21/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.245/Chny/2025] The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore Vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.3, Hi Tech Engineering & Service Sector Sez, Annur Road, Village Kittampalayam & Karumathampatty, Coimbatore – 641 659. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Pan: Aabch 8089G (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross Objector) : Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.Cit : Shri Ashik Shah, Ca & Ms. Soundariya, Ca : 15.07.2025 : 01.08.2025 आदेश /Order Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 Both Dated 28.11.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter The 'Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2013-14. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection For

Section 143(2)Section 144C(4)Section 250Section 92C

The Muthada Khurd Co Operative Agri Multipurpose Society Limited, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Phagwara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 481/ASR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: None (Adjournment application)

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

could not ascertain as to whether the above board order dated 30/09/2020, covers all returns u/s 139, or only the belated or revised returns u/s sub section (4) and (5)of section 139 of the Act, for the Asst year 2019-20. 15. As such considering all aspects