“revised return”

Nareshkumar P. Solanki, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(2)(3), Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

lakhs paid towards purchase of a flat. The Assessing Officer rejected the said claim by stating that additional claims can be made only through revised return only, as per the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd. (284 ITR 363). In the appellate

Bharat Mohanlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT, Range- 16(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Assessing Officer selected the return for scrutiny and accordingly issued notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act on 20.8.2010. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 30.3.2011 before the Assessing Officer, wherein the assessee revised upwards the income declared under the head ‘income from house property’ and also ... assessment accepting additional income disclosed in the revised computation of income. The Assessing officer, however, held that the assessee was not entitled to file revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act, since the original return of income was not filed within the time prescribed

DCIT (E) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Society of the Servant of the Holy Spirit, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit(Exemption)-2(1), Society Of The Servant Of The 5Th Floor, Holy Spirit, बनाम/ Piramal Chamber, Holy Spirit Hospital, Vs. Lalbaug, Parel, Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai-400012 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400092 Pan. No. Aaaas0148J (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

return of income was filed on June 28, 1985, by the assessee declaring a deficit of Rs 7497 lakhs In the revised return filed by the assessee on April 3, 1986, the deficit was increased to Rs 8918 lakhs This revision of accounts was authorised by the Bombay Public Trust

ITO 20(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Neeta Mahendra Puri, Mumbai

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-06

appellate stage even though the assessee had neither made the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act before the assessing officer nor filed revised return of income claiming the deduction (As held in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. (SC) 111 ITR 1). 5. The appellant

Prabhat Jhunjhunwala, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.6355 & 3108/Mum/2011 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08) Prabhat Jhunjhunwala Asst. Cit-16(1), बनाम/ 25, Sayaji Nagoji Building, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Vs. 15, Balaram Street, Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 034 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacpj 3606 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Mitesh Mehta ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Pandian सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 15.3.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 10.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Two Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27/28, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short), Disposing The Assessee’S Appeals Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) R/W S. 147 & U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2006-07 & 2007-08 Respectively.

additional income of Rs.5 lacs and Rs.30 lacs as ‘income’ from unaccounted receipts for A.Ys. 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively, filing a revised return for A.Y. 2007-08 on 16.7.2008. The assessee was examined on oath u/s.131 of the Act on 4.4.2008 by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on various

Agarwal Metals & Alloys, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 14(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

assessment proceedings, the assessee lodged the claim for deduction of the same u/s 43B of the Act. Since the claim was made without filing revised return of income, the AO as well as the Ld CIT(A) rejected the claim, by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court

ITO (E) -I(1), Mumbai vs. Dr..D.Y Patil Sports Academy, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

return of income was filed on June 28, 1985, by the assessee declaring a deficit of Rs 7497 lakhs In the revised return filed by the assessee on April 3, 1986, the deficit was increased to Rs 8918 lakhs This revision of accounts was authorised by the Bombay Public Trust

Vipul P. Dalal, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Vipul P. Dalal D C I T - 12(2) 11, Sadhana, ‘B’ Road Àayakar Bhavan Vs. 32, Churchgate M.K. Road Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aacpd1495Q Appellant Respondent

return of income filed, without claiming set off of business loss of `83,84,370/- and also since no revised return was filed nor such claim for set off of business loss was made in the assessment proceedings. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the AO’s view

Manoj Kumar Pawankumar Kedia, Mumbai vs. DCIT- 4(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoj Kumar Pawan Kumar Dcit-4(1), Kedia, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ 2B, Jai Hind Estate, 4Th Floor, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Block No.4, Dr. A.M. Road, Bhuleswar (W) Mumbai-400002 (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No. Accpk5701C

deduction of the said amount paid was an admissible claim as revenue expenditure and could be claimed before the CIT(A) without filing the revised return of income before the Assessing Officer. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) ought ... Rs.12 lakhs be allowed u/s 37 of the Act was not accepted and rejected on the ground that the assessee has not filed revised return to claim the same. 3.2. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated its stand that the claim

Syngenta India Ltd, Pune vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the actual expenditure incurred during this year on site restoration cost. Accordingly, ground no. 5 is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “के” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI "ी बी आर भा