← 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

Sree Meenakshi Realtors, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 715/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. K. Raghu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, IRS, JCIT
Section 133ASection 140ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 234BSection 234C

account, details of purchase and sales made during the year and expenses incurred and the ld. Assessing Officer after verification of records accepted Revised return of income and passed assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 23.06.2014. Subsequently, the assessee filed petition u/sec ... assessee which was rejected. The ld. Assessing Officer should not have charged interest u/s.234C of the Act on the tax payable on Revised return of income filed in compliance to notice u/s.148 of the Act including the unaccounted money of "57,52,320/-. The interest u/s.234C of the Act should

DCIT Cir 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Ricoh India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, as above

ITA 4700/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: (A.Y : 2009-10) Dcit, Circle-3(3)(2), Vs. M/S. Ricoh India Ltd. 801, 8Th Floor, Ackruti Star, Midc Mumbai (Appellant) Central Road, Nr. Marol Telephone Exchange, Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 (Respondent) Pan : Aaacr4151J

For Appellant: Shri Suresh MalikFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

same was added back while computing the total income at the time of filing the original return of income on 27.9.2009. However, in the revised return filed on 21.3.2011 assessee claimed deduction of amortization of goodwill of Rs.3,58,16,000/-. On being show caused to justify the claim, assessee

Ashok Piramal Management Corporaiton Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(1), Mumbai

Accordingly confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition though on a different ground pleaded by the ld. AR. Thus, this ground stands dismissed

ITA 4401/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deym/S. Ashok Piramal Management Asstt. Commissioner Of Corporation Limited Income Tax, Ward 6(1) Peninsula Spenta, 2Nd Floor Room No. 506, 5Th Floor Vs. Mathuradas Mills Compound Aayakar Bhavan Senapati Bapat Marg M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aafca5278E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumauan Paite
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 9

consultants, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 26.09.2009 declaring income of `19,79,012/-. On 28.03.2011, the assessee filed a revised return declaring income of `38,40,819/-. The returns were processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Market Place, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3013/MUM/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2000-01)

For Appellant: Shri P.N. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

accepting the income declared by the assessee. Subsequently, the case was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and assessee filed revised return declaring total income at Rs.1,64,445/- and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 24.3.2005 assessing the total income at Rs.13

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Jbf Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5637/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2695/M/11 & I.T.A.No.6209/Mum/11 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:, 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/S. Jbf Industries Limited बनाम/ Addl. Commissioner Of 8Th Floor, Express Tower, Income Tax 4(2) Vs. Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5637/Mum/13, I.T.A.2765/Mum/11

For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)

that the assessee filed the return of income on 27.01.2009 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.70,18,27,960/-. Subsequently a revised return was filed on 31.03.2010 revising total income to the tune of Rs.76,14,41,334/-. The reason for revising return was that the assessee ... offer the exchange fluctuation gain in the original return which was subsequently offered in the revised return. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 04.08.2009 and served upon the assessee on 11.08.2009. Since the I.T.A. No.2695&6209/Mum/11, 5637/Mum/13, I.T.A.2765/Mum/11, 638/Mum/2013

ITO 24(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Deepak Khusaldas Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 3019/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3019/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer – Shri Deepak Khusaldas बनाम/ 24(1)(4), Mehta, V. R. No. 502, Prop. Mehta Steel C-13, Syndicate, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, 201, Ganga, R.S. Marg, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (East) Bandra (East), Mumbai –400 097. Mumbai – 400 051`. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpm7200P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.P. KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

manufactures, traders of conductors and ferrous and non-ferrous metals, filed its return for assessment year 2007-08 on 29/10/2007 declaring NIL income. A revised return was filed on 1/9/2008 declaring total income of Rs.5,91,912/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income

M/S Nicotra India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3954/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Ms. Vandna Gopal Sharda, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chander Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

That in any case, mistake if any was on account of bona fide causes and assessee having filed the revised return /revised statement of income, there could be no case of any penalty for concealment u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That all the facts relating ... That in any case, mistake if any was on account of bona fide causes and assessee having filed the revised return /revised statement of income, there could be no case of any penalty for concealment u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That all the facts relating

M/S Nicotra India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3953/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Ms. Vandna Gopal Sharda, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chander Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

That in any case, mistake if any was on account of bona fide causes and assessee having filed the revised return /revised statement of income, there could be no case of any penalty for concealment u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That all the facts relating ... That in any case, mistake if any was on account of bona fide causes and assessee having filed the revised return /revised statement of income, there could be no case of any penalty for concealment u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. That all the facts relating

ACIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Quantum Land & Housing (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4251/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. N.C. Swain, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate &
Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

Mittal 251 ITR 9(SC), wherein, the assessee had originally filed returns showing meager income. After search u/s 132 and notice for re-opening, revised returns were filed showing higher income. In penalty proceedings under section 271, assessee claimed that he had offered additional income to purchase peace and avoid ... income. When, after action under section 132 of the Income tax Act, 1961, a notice under section 148 was served on him, he filed revised returns showing higher income. Eventually, assessment orders were passed and the returns submitted regularized under section 148. In penalty proceedings under section 271, the assessee

Income Tax Officer Ward-55(4), Kolkata vs. Shri Jay Kumar Khemka, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2411/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri G. Hukuga Sema, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

after the AO detected it. 4. That, on the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the assessee did not even file any revised return to offer the commission amount, if it had been a bonafide mistake on his part to report the same in the original return ... inaccurate particulars of his income. It vanished before it could be detected. 21. The correct and accurate disclosure may be by filing the revised return or by furnishing the particulars of such income before the detection by the Assessing Officer. The mere fact that the assessee had not revised

Sri Partha Mitra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-38(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 848/KOL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Vishwanethra Ravi

Section 143(1)Section 148

Rs.3,64,723/-. The said return was processed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(1) on 07.03.2006. Thereafter the assessee filed a revised return on 30.03.2006 showing a total income of Rs.4,08,710/- . In order to regularize the said revised return, a notice under section 148 was issued ... Assessing Officer, in reply to which it was submitted by the assessee that the revised return filed by him on 30.03.2006 be treated as the return filed in response to notice under section 148. In the revised return, additional expenditure on account of purchases amounting to Rs.4

ITO WD 3(4), Thane vs. Uma Developers, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 7718/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainincome Tax Officer-3(4) M/S. Uma Developers 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Shop No. 2, Mayur Chs Ltd. Vs. Road No. 16Z, Wagle Indl. M.G. Road, Naupada Estate, Thane (W) 400601 Thane (W) - 400602 Pan - Aabfu8250F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A.K. DhondialFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80ASection 80I

obliged to give due relief to assessee or entertain its claims if admissible as per law even though the assessee had not filed revised return. Following the said decision, the ld. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow claim of the assessee made u/s. 801B

Shriram Retail Holdings Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 885/CHNY/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Aug 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Parmindu, CIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

admitting total income of "2,53,25,000/- after setting off of brought forward business loss of "1,95,76,595/-. The assessee filed revised Return of income on 29.09.2011 admitting total income of "1,10,92,230/- after claiming set off of brought forward business of earlier years ... assessee has filed original Return of income on 15.10.2010 with disallowance of expenditure under Rule 8D "1,42,83,989/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed Revised return on 29.09.2011 and reduced disallowance under Rule 8D to "51,220/-. The expenditure claimed is directly :- 5 -: related to the investments earning dividend income

Suman Kadam, Thane vs. ITO WD 2(4), Thane

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2777/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2777/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Suman Kadam Ito, Ward 2(4), बनाम/ Vardaan, 6Th Floor, S/1, Narmada Apartment, Cabin Cross Road, Bhayandar (E), Ashar I. T. Park, Road No. 16-Z, Vs. Thane-401 105 Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane-400 604 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afipk 3600 D (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3256/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Ito, Ward 2(2), Suman Kadam Thane-400 604 Thane-401 105 Vs. (Revenue) : (Assessee) : Shri Vijay Shah Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Debabrata Baidya सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 12.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 08.8.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 27.2.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 31.12.2010. 2

For Respondent: Shri Debabrata Baidya
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

view that the assessee could not withdraw her declaration of long-term capital gain (LTCG) supra, i.e., once returned, except per a revised return. 3 ITA Nos. 2777 & 3256/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) Suman Kadam vs. ITO In their view the gain had been correctly returned in-as-much ... same was considered not acceptable by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) in-as-much as the assessee had not done so per a revised return, i.e., as prescribed by law. How could the assessee have given possession of the plot without receiving full consideration in its’ respect? If the possession

M/S. Royal Exports, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1972/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

income for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87 at certain figures of const of construction. Thereafter when enquiries were made they filed revised returns disclosing higher cost of construction in the basis of an approved valuer’s report. The revised returns were accepted by the Department and assessments ... were completed. The difference between the incomes originally returned and 6 ITA No.1972/Del./2014 those in the revised returns were treated as concealed income and penalties were levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellants were also prosecuted for the offence under section 276C

Shri Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-47(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 714/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)

individual, who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 29.07.2010 declaring total income of Rs.59,360/-. Thereafter a revised return was filed by the assessee on 12.01.2012 declaring total income of Rs.1,59,360/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide an order dated

Shivam Steel & Tubes P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3)

ITA 4691/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/4691/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Shivam Steel & Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-5(3) Unit No.264, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. A-Z, Industrial Premises Co.Op. Soc. Mumbai. Lower Parel,Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aadcs 9345 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-Dr Assessee By: Shri Jayesh Dadia सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर 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 03.6.2014 Of Cit(A)-9 Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Steel Tubes & Furniture Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.9.2009 ,Declaring Total Income Rs.1.24Crores.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment U/S. 143(3),On 5.12.2012,Determining Its Total Income At Rs.1.35Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

read as under: “ PENALTY — EXCESS CLAIM TO DEPRECIATION — WRONG CLAIM TO LOSS AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE — MISTAKES RECTIFIED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SINCE TIME TO FILE REVISED RETURN EXPIRED — NO DISPUTE THAT MISTAKE BONA FIDE — NO PENALTY LEVIABLE.” Respectfully following the above case and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances

The DCIT 3(1) vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd

ITA 2654/MUM/2005[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2524/Mum/2005 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers Iii, Income Tax, Range 3(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapj 8040P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Ghosh

return of income by the assessee was filed on 26.11.1998 declaring an income of Rs.13,35,74,640/- u/s 115JAof the Act. Thereafter a revised return of income was filed on 31.03.2000 declaring income of Rs.8,25,05,680/- u/s 115 JA of the Act. The return was processed

M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd vs. The Dy CIT RG3(1)

ITA 2524/MUM/2005[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2524/Mum/2005 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1998-99) Gujarat Ambuja Cements Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 122, Maker Chambers Iii, Income Tax, Range 3(1), बनाम/ Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Mumbai-400 021. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapj 8040P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Ghosh

return of income by the assessee was filed on 26.11.1998 declaring an income of Rs.13,35,74,640/- u/s 115JAof the Act. Thereafter a revised return of income was filed on 31.03.2000 declaring income of Rs.8,25,05,680/- u/s 115 JA of the Act. The return was processed

M/S Garden City Resorts Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 218/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.R.V. Sreenivasan, Jt. CIT(DR)
Section 139Section 153CSection 153DSection 234Section 234B

assessee filed another return on 28.10.2010 disclosing capital gains at Rs.2,75,64,615 and marking the return as a Page 4 of 6 revised return u/s. 153C of the Act. In view of the fact that the original return has already been acted upon as a return u/s. 153C ... admitted return of income; whereas according to the assessee, it has already paid the tax on the admitted return of income and since revised return filed by the assessee was not accepted by the AO, there was no question of payment of tax on the income declared in the revised