“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

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

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

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

M/S R.T. Paper Board Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4868/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2003-04 R.T. Paper Board Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 15(1) 407-408, Deepali New Delhi Nehru Place New Delhi 110 019 Pan: Aabcr 9393 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh.Somil Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Raman Kant Garg, Sr.D.R. Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy

For Appellant: Sh.Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Raman Kant Garg, Sr.D.R

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

related to A.Y. 2002-03 and ITA No. 4868/Del/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 R.T.Paper Board Ltd., New Delhi was claimed in the revised return of A.Y. 2002-03 and Rs.2,52,14,220/- was added in the computation of taxable income. As the assessee was following mercantile system of accountancy, balance

DCIT, Moradabad vs. M/S Hte Enterprises (P) Ltd., Moradabad

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 4093/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Sachdev, C.A

Section 132(2)Section 154

disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. In this case on hand, no claim was made by the assessee in its return of income. 4.1. Applying the proposition laid down in the above cited

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, we direct the AO to reduce the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act by the amount of reversal of the provision of Rs

ITA 196/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. I. C.Sudhir Judicialmember & Sh. Prashant Maharishia.Y.: - 2008-09 Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs Acit 12Th Floor, Devika Tower, Range -15 6, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aaacr0127N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: 1. Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 92D

Page 1 of 134 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I. C.SUDHIR JudicialMember

M/S National Gems School, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD 28 (3), Kolkata

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

ITA 759/KOL/2014[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

fresh claim for deduction on account of car rent amounting to Rs.93,150/- was made by the assessee. In the absence of any revised return filed by the assessee making the said claim, the Assessing Officer did not entertain the same made by the assessee in the return filed ... response to notice under section 148 by observing that the said claim could have been made by the assessee only in the form of revised return and not certainly in the return filed in response to notice under section 148. He also confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer

Watertec (India) Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 134/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Watertec (India) Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of (Formerly Watertec Systems V. Income Tax, (India) Private Limited), Corporate Circle – 1, Gopal Bagh, 1060, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 018. Pan : Aaacw 1645 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.B. Koli, JCIT

Section 148Section 31

valves, etc. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee-company claimed depreciation on the plant and machinery and molds at 30%. Subsequently, a revised return was filed claiming depreciation at the rate of 100%. Since the assessee claimed excess depreciation at 100%, the assessment was reopened by issuing notice ... Representative, submitted that the assessee replaced the molds and had claimed depreciation at the rate of 30% in the original return. By filing subsequent revised return, the assessee has 4 I.T.A. No.134/Mds/16 claimed the same at the rate of 100%. Therefore, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment after issuing notice

M/S Rolls-Royce India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No.3

ITA 6636/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishirolls-Royce India Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Birla Tower West, Circle-21(2), Vs. 25, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aabcr5277Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Chaurasia, Sr. DR

Section 144C(5)Section 92C

maintenance and other services including technical, project management and marketing support. 4. Assessee filed its return of income on 30.03.2013 (stated to be revised return) at a total income of Rs.382294149/-. According to the information filed assessee entered into following international transactions during the year:- S. Type of international transaction

M/S Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd vs. Addlc.I, .T., Bangalore

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

ITA 309/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.309/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, No.15/1, Cubbon Road, Bangalore 560 001 .. Appellant Pan : Aaach3641R V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range - 11, Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Praveen Kumar Prasad, Itp Revenue By : Shri. Sanjay Kumar, Cit -Iii Heard On : 17.03.2016 Pronounced On : 22.04.2016 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Kumar Prasad, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT -III

BAEHAL Software Ltd, in ITA No.136 of 2010, Dt.01.03.2011, which incidentally was a sister concern of the assessee, held that without filing a revised return, such a claim could not be admitted. As per the CIT (A) assessee had never claimed such a deduction either in the return of income ... nature, it ought have claimed a deduction u/s.35(1)(iv) of the Act, in the return of income , or at least through a revised return. Further according to him, Section 35(1)(iv) and Section 43(4) of the Act used the term ‘scientific research

Bayer Bioscience Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2685/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year : 2004-05 D.C.I.T. 14(1), Vs. Bayer Bioscience P. Ltd., Mumbai. (Formerly M/S. Proagro Seed Co. P. Ltd. ), Bayer House, Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai.[Pan: Aaacp 3459M]

For Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, DR

payment towards license fees in the assessment year 2004-05 on the ground that said claim is neither raised in original return or revised return. In this regard, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that allowance of Rs.25,00,000 was arising out of the assessment order passed ... Biotech (India) Ltd. as per agreement dated 09.03.2004, the record reveals that neither the assessee claimed this expenditure in return of income nor any revised return claiming this expenditure was filed nor the Assessing Officer made any discussion in the assessment order for the year under appeal on this count

Smt. Punita Lal, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6121/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Punita Lal, 909B, The Aralias Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-47, 3Rd Floor, Block-B, Civic Dlf, Golf Links, Gurgaon Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan : Abqpl3616A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Mr. Rupesh Jain, Advocate & Ms. Shaily Gupta, Ca Respondent By Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 19.04.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 24/09/2015 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals) For Assessment Year 2011-12 Confirming The Penalty, Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”) By The Assessing Officer. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: 1. That The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Holding That The Impugned Order Dated 24.07.2014 Levying Penalty Of Rs. 18,35,000/- Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Void-Ab-Initio. 1.1 That The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Appreciating That The Impugned Penalty Order Was Passed Without Recording Proper Satisfaction In The Assessment

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

case was taken up for scrutiny. Further, he submitted that since the return was filed 4 AY: 2011-12 belated, the assessee could not revise return of income but paid the differential taxes of Rs. 1,29,430/- on 16/03/2012 and Rs. 1,870/- on 02/02/2012 and the balance ... fault of the assessee in not including the income in the return of income and that was for the reason of inability to file revised return due to technical reasons that a belated return cannot be revised and assessee was not having any intention to conceal the income considering

D.C.I.T CC - V, Kolkata vs. Salsar Stock Broking Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 1082/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 73

being accounted for. All these were pointed out to the assessee. The assessee came forward with offer of additional income. Assessee filed a revised return on 31-3-1989 declaring a total income for this year at Rs. 3,74,226 as against the earlier amount ... been estimated by the search party in the office of the appellant and its sister concerns. On the basis of these calculations, revised returns were filed by the appellant for all the years under appeal. The income as per revised returns were also accepted in toto. In the course

D.C.I.T CC - V, Kolkata vs. Shree Salsar Properties & Finance (P) Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 1081/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271A

Dilip Manhar Parekh, Mumbai vs. DCIT 21(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 6169/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6169/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shri Dilip Manhar Parekh, The Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ National Plastic, Income Tax –21(3), V. National House, Mumbai. Opp Ansa A Bldg., Saki Vihar Road, Chandivali, Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Affp4206B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad(D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54FSection 54F(3)

declaring total income of Rs.25,39,550/- , which return of income was revised on 22-07-2009 by the assessee by filing revised return of income whereby income returned was revised to Rs.25,49,475/- . The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee ... pursuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, declaring the same income of Rs.25,49,475/- as was declared earlier vide revised return filed on 22-07-2009. ITA 6169/Mum/2013 3 The A.O. during the course of re-assessment proceedings observed that during the accounting period relevant for the assessment

M/S Unitech Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5180/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Unitech Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, 6-Community Centre, Range-18, Saket, New Delhi-1100 17 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Additional Cit, Vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., Range-18, 6-Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam And, Ca & Shjalesh Gupta, Ca Department By: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia, Government Standing Counsels Date Of Hearing : 12 .01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 :04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:These Cross Appeals Preferred By Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-Xxi, New Delhi Dated 16.8.2013 & Relate To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant-Assessee Is A Public Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development Of Real Estate Projects. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, It Filed A Return Declaring An Income Of Rs. 922,30,17,671/- On 29.9.2009, Which Came To Be Assessed At An Income Of Rs. 3361,18,87,560/- In An Order Dated 1.8.2012 Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. On Appeal, Learned Cit(A) Granted Part Relief To The Appellant & Hence The Appeals Before Us.

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam and, CA and Shjalesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48

which the income was first assessable; or b) one year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year, is filed under sub section (4) or sub-section (5) of section 139 whichever is later:] Provided that in case

Asst CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 2141/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Sunil K. Jha (DR)

Section 115WSection 254(1)

file any claim of exclusion of certain items from the computation of total value of FB in the original return or in the revised return filed by it, that in view of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Pvt. Ltd. the AO was justified ... contention of the ld. DR that if the assessee was not convinced by its return of fringe benefit, then he should have filed a revised return 2196,2141-Aditya Birla failing which,the assessee should be precluded from raising such grounds of appeal. In support of her submissions

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Gateway Distriparks Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5746/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2010-11 Dcit, M/S Gateway Distriparks Circle-3(1), Ltd. B 1/3, Emca House बनाम/ Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Sahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aaacg3425C (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 80I

assessment year 2008–09, the assessee filed its return of income on 29th September 2008, ` declaring total income of 17,23,16,060. Subsequently, revised return was filed by the assessee on 13th June 2009, declaring total income of ` 17,23,16,060. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer

Medi Scan, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-22, Kolkata

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

ITA 1395/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No.1395/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Medi-Scan -Vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-22, Kolkata Kolkata (Pan:Aajfm 4182 E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Das, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 154

Income of the Assessee was Rs.1,34,445/ - as against loss of Rs. 4,462/-. The Assessee pointed out that it had filed a Revised return but that was also incorrectly filled up by its Tax Consultant. As a result, Computerised Processing Centre (CPC) Bangalore sent demand notice of Intimation

Gifford & Partners Ltd.(Since Merged With Gifford LLP), Kolkata vs. ADIT (International Taxation) - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 1489/KOL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

wherein the Assessee had offered the sum in question to tax. He also held that such a claim cannot be made without filing a revised return of income. In this regard the AO referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India ... wherein it was held that the AO has not power to entertain any claim by an Assessee which is not supported by a revised return of income. The contention of the Assessee regarding the non taxability of the amount received in USD, was rejected. In coming to the above conclusion

Gifford & Partners Ltd.(Since Merged With Gifford LLP), Kolkata vs. DDIT, International Taxation - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result ITA No.1489/Kol/11 is partly allowed

ITA 2082/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

International Merchandising Corporation, India Branch Office, Gurgaon vs. DDIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 222/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-222/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2004-05) International Merchandising Vs Ddit Corporation, India Branch Office Circle-1(2), Img House, 5Th Floor, Tower A, International Taxation Building 9, Dlf Phases-Iii, Cyber New Delhi City Gurgaon (Respondent) Aaac18025Q (Appellant) & I.T.A .No.-6449/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2004-05) Dcit Vs International Merchandising Circle-1(2), Room No. 410, Corp. Drum Shaped Building, I.P. Estate Img Houses, 4Th Floor 268, New Delhi Masjid Moth, Uday Park (Appellant) New Delhi Aaaci8025Q (Respondent)

Section 195Section 40Section 92Section 92C(2)

During the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2004 declaring loss of Rs. 28,162,488/-. Subsequently, a revised return of income u/s. 139(5) of the Act was filed on 31.03.2006 wherein the assessee revised the loss to Rs. 30,038,768/-. The Assessing

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. International Merchandising Corp., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 6449/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: PendingITAT Delhi05 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Section 195Section 40Section 92Section 92C(2)