← 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

Sundial Investments P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5674/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5674/Mum/2012 & M/S Sundial Investments Pvt. बनधम/ The Asstt. Commissioner Of Ltd, Income Tax-Circle 3(3), Vs. 127 Jolly Maker Chambers, Mumbai. Nariman Points, Mumbai-400021 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacs9845C अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Anuj Kishnadwalla प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri Love Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :30.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A) Dated 15.5.2012 & 21.10.2013 & They Pertain To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical / Inter-Connected, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Appeal Wise Adjudication Is Given In The Succeeding Paragraphs.

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

ground that mere filing of the revised statement of income was not sufficient and the same was not filed by way of revised return and therefore not acceptable. Finally, the AO after considering the submissions of the assessee from time to time framed the assessment ... following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd(supra) that the claim was not by filing revised return, therefore, mere filing the revised computation of income would not entitle the assessee to the said deduction of interest. The issue was taken

DCIT, Tiruppur vs. Maglink Infra Projects Pvt Ltd., Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed for 8

ITA 97/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194C(6)

said expense was not part of the original return and it was introduced only at the stage of filing the revised return. Moreover no TDS was deducted nor PAN and details about the transport agents were produced. Hence the genuineness was not proved before the Assessing Officer. 4. Whether ... assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Contract works and filed Return of income on 30.09.2011 admitting "2,34,67,370/-. Subsequently, filed revised return on 04.08.2012 declaring a loss of "24,09,996/- and the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s.143

Winergy Drive Systems India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1720/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1720/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S. Winergy Drive Systems India The Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited (Merged With Vs. Income Tax, Siemens Ltd.), Corporate Taxation, Company Circle Iii(3), 3Rd Floor, 130 Pandurang Budhkar Chennai . Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400 018. [Pan: Aaacw5466B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Raghunathan Sampath, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 143(3)

made by the assessee in the original computation of 11 I.T.A. No.1720/M/14 income, where as the assessee claimed the same as expenditure in the revised return "based on subsequent judicial decisions". The Assessing Officer has made the addition in the order based on the disallowance made by the assessee itself

M/S. Borg Warner Morse Tec India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2239/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2239/Mds/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Borgwarner Morse Tec The Assistant Commissioner Of India Private Limited [Formerly Known Vs. Income Tax, As Borgwarner Morse Tech Company Circle I(2), Murugappa P. Ltd.], 79, Sidco Chennai . Industrial Estate, Kakkalur, Tiruvallur 602 003. [Pan: Aagca6963P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 144c(1)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

No.2239/M/13 2. The main ground of the appeal of the assessee in the transfer pricing appeal is against the DRP in not considering the revised return of income filed by the assessee, though raised as additional grounds of appeal. Since the additional grounds of appeal raised before us relates ... adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company has filed the original return of income on 30.09.2009 and subsequently a revised return f income on 30.03.2011 for the assessment year 2009-10 claiming a loss of ₹.76,10,104/- reckoned the same while computing the taxable

Galatea Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5434/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Daym/S. Galatea Ltd. Dcit (International Taxation) P.O. 1156, Industrial Vs. Range 2(3)(2) Area, Dalton, Israel Mumbai Pan - Aadcg8396D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bomi Daruwala &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)

from sale of application software. In these factual circumstances, the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 05.10.2013 and a revised return on 28.03.2014 declaring total income at Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny. The draft order of assessment was passed under section 144C

Dilip Dharmsey Khatau, Mumbai vs. ITO (It) 3(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5386/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Dilip Dharmsey Khatau, Ito 3(1)(1) 881/888, Atlanta, Scindia House, 1St बनाम/ 209, Nariman Point, Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400021 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aabpk3729R "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Mrs. D.J. Jariwala (Ar) Mrs. Surbhi Sharma (Sr. राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Dr)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90

that the claim with regard to the provisions of DTAA was not made by the assessee either in the original return or in the revised return filed by it, but the same was claimed by way of petition u/s 154, which could not have been granted as it required investigation ... both of these returns, the 4 Dilip Dharamsey Khatau residential status of the assessee was shown as ‘non- resident’. The revised return included inter alia the income on account of interest from bank/financial institutions aggregating to Rs.2,17,22,013/- and income from short term capital gain from sale

ITO 5(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Dhadda Diamonds P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6555/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

after the learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the disallowance of depreciation for assessment year 2007–08, vide order dated 8th December 2010, the assessee filed revised return of income for assessment year 2010–11 and assessment year 2011–12, withdrawing the claim of depreciation thereby admitting that it was not entitled ... made by it, the assessee accepted it and withdrew its excess claim of depreciation in assessment years 2010–11 and 2011–12 by filing revised return of income. The learned Department Representative submitted, the assessee knowing fully well that depreciation is not allowable in respect of premises not used

Parle Agro P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 25, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3343/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/3343/Mum/2013िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year :2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Cent Circle-25 Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor Western Express Highway Chakala, Andheri(E) Vs. M.K. Road Mumbai-400 099. Mumbai-20. Pan:Aaacp 8416 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/3688/Mum/2013िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year :2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cent Circle-25 Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-20. Vs. Mumbai-400 099. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni-Dr Assessee By: Shri Firoze Andhyarujina-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2016 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)

For Appellant: Shri Firoze Andhyarujina-ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni-DR
Section 143Section 254(1)

juice-based drinks,drinking water etc.,filed its return of income on 30/09/2009 declaring total income of Rs. 9.18 Crores. The assessee filed a revised return on 09/02/2011 declaring income of 11.74 Crores.The AO completed the assessment u/s. 143 (3) of the Act,on 17/10/2011,determining the income

Divine Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 31, Mumbai

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2006–07, 2008–

ITA 104/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 115JSection 143(3)

assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 29th November 2006, declaring loss of ` 6,89,658. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 28th March 2007, declaring total income of ` 34,05,883. In 4 M/s. Divine Holdings Pvt. Ltd. the course of assessment

ACIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Gelis Hueseyin, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and C

ITA 6045/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Niti Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar (DR)
Section 10

assessee’s salary income. The contention of assessee was not accepted by AO. AO concluded that assessee had an option to file a revised return and rejected the claim of assessee for exclusion of Rs. 38,04,684/- from the head “Income from Salary”. Before the CIT(A) while arguing

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Elgi Equipments Limited, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 2943/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

scrutiny assessment for adjustment of carrying forward loss was not considered. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that assessee company has filed revised return for the assessment year 2010-2011 withdrawing the weighted deduction claimed u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act alongwith benefit of carry forward loss

Elgi Equipments Ltd., Coimbatore vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the assessee appeal in ITA No

ITA 2769/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

scrutiny assessment for adjustment of carrying forward loss was not considered. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) found that assessee company has filed revised return for the assessment year 2010-2011 withdrawing the weighted deduction claimed u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act alongwith benefit of carry forward loss

M/S Aspect Software Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands disposed off accordingly

ITA 1842/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. V. Mehrotra & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Roshni Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253Section 9

Assessee / Aspect”) filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2011-12 on 30.09.2011 declaring income of Rs.4,18,99,620/- later on a revised return declaring income of Rs.4,20,76,782/- was filed by the assessee on 31.03.2013. The case was 2 I.T.A.No.1842/Del/2016 selected for scrutiny

Cms Info Systems P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(3), Mumbai

ITA 5038/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri Joginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5038/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Cms Info Systems Private Limited Adcit-5(3) Cms House, Plot No.91, Street No.7 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Marol Midc Andheri(E) Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 093. Pan:Aamcs 2311 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratham-Dr Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jotwani-Ar’S सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2016 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,Dtd.23/05/2013 Of The Cit (A)-9,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Firm,Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Computer Systems, Components & Peripherals & Other Allied Services,Filed Its Return Of Income On 13.10. 2010,Declaring Total Income At Rs.Nil.It Filed A Revised Return On 29.09.2011 Showing Income Of Rs.38,79,76,980/-. A Revised Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.09.2011,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.38,26, 36,760/-.The Assessing Officer (Ao)Completed The Assessment, U/S. 143(3) Of The Act,On 27.02.2013,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.38.55 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani-AR’sFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratham-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

Computer Systems, components and peripherals and other allied services,filed its return of income on 13.10. 2010,declaring total income at Rs.NIL.It filed a revised return on 29.09.2011 showing income of Rs.38,79,76,980/-. A revised return of income was filed on 30.09.2011,declaring total income of Rs.38

DCIT CC 41, Mumbai vs. Classic Electircals Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4085/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.4085/Mum/2014,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 Dcit Cc-41, M/S Classic Electricals Ltd. R.No.655, 6Th Floor, 33-Huges, 3Rd Floor, N.S. Patkar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs Marg, Grant Road (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400007 Pan:Aaacc5735F (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By :Shri Naveen Gupta (Dr) "नधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By :Ms. Aarti Sathe (Ar) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20- 06 -2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24-06-2016 आयकर अ"ध"नयम,1961 क" धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) "या"यक सद"य Iou Flag Iou Flag Iou Flag के अनुसार Per Pawan Singh, Jm- Iou Flag

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe (AR)For Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta (DR)
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed its reply dated 18.07.2012 and requested that return filed u/s 139 may be treated as revised return. After reply of assessee, notice u/s 143(2) dated 24.07.2012 was served upon the assessee. During the re-opening assessment proceeding, the AO observed

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. E-City Investments & Holdings Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by assessee are allowed and both appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5697/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

said section." 3. Assessee e-filed its original return of income declaring net loss at Rs.6,14,200/-. Thereafter, assessee e-filed its revised return of income declaring net loss at Rs.9,77,77,630/-. First issue raised in Revenue’s appeal is with regards to disallowance of interest u/s.14A

E-City Investment & Holdings Company P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(1)(OSD), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by assessee are allowed and both appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3163/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, D.R
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

said section." 3. Assessee e-filed its original return of income declaring net loss at Rs.6,14,200/-. Thereafter, assessee e-filed its revised return of income declaring net loss at Rs.9,77,77,630/-. First issue raised in Revenue’s appeal is with regards to disallowance of interest u/s.14A

ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Pravin B. Bhandarkar, Mumbai

ITA 6672/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7364/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, 400020 Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6671/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Prakash B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6672/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Pravin B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri C.W.Angolkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2016

Section 143(3)

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

ACIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Prakash B Bhandarkar, Mumbai

ITA 6671/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7364/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, 400020 Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6671/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Prakash B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6672/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Pravin B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri C.W.Angolkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2016

Section 143(3)

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

Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai vs. Pandoo P. Naig, Mumbai

ITA 7364/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7364/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, 400020 Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6671/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Prakash B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6672/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Pravin B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri C.W.Angolkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2016

Section 143(3)

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