← 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

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

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

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

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

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.G. Scientific Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1246/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1246/Del/2013 (Assessment Year-2009-10)

Section 115Section 115JSection 41(1)

filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 30/9/2009 declaring a loss of Rs.5,85,83,476/- and subsequently filed revised returns on 8/1/2010 declaring a loss of Rs.5,74,79,318/-. The assessee company recorded prior period adjustment of Rs.3,41,25,895/-. The Assessing

Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 9, Kolkata

Accordingly, the ground nos. 8 & 9 in ITA No. 451/Kol/2013 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1622/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganeshita No. 1622/Kol/2011 A.Y 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S Damle, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT, ld

Section 115JSection 143(3)

provisions of Section 115JB had no application primarily on the ground that the aforesaid claim was not made in the return of income or revised return of income filed by the appellant. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ... that Section 115JB had no application, primarily on the ground that the such claim was not made by filing a return of income or revised return of income. 3. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) failed

Asst CIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. The Azavedo Family Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2240/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. E. SankaranFor Respondent: Shri. Prakash Jotwani

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 111A

Short Term Capital Gain Rs. 81,28,460/- and Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 77,48,096/- Subsequently, the trust submitted its revised return on 02/02/2012 after obtaining audited financial statements, declaring the total income at Rs. 68,96,296/-. During the year under consideration, the trust earned total ... Assessment Year: 2010-11 which was offered for tax under the following heads of income in the revised return. • Dividend Income : Rs. 11,30,413/-(exempt u/s 10(34)/(35) • Long Term Capital Gain : Rs. 15,58,00,405/-(exempt u/s 10(38) • Short Term Capital Gain

Khandelwal Estate P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 4171/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Vinita J. Menon, D.R

assessee therefore did not offer the income from sale of the said property in A.Y. 2003-04. However, a revised return was filed for A.Y. 2003-04 on 08.04.08 in respect of the said income in response to the notice issued under section 148 by the AO, the aforesaid sale ... transaction of immovable property was offered to tax in the said revised return of income. Thereafter, no action was taken by the Department and as such the revised return filed by the assessee has been accepted by the Department. 22. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions

Khandelwal Estate (P) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5492/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Vinita J. Menon, D.R

assessee therefore did not offer the income from sale of the said property in A.Y. 2003-04. However, a revised return was filed for A.Y. 2003-04 on 08.04.08 in respect of the said income in response to the notice issued under section 148 by the AO, the aforesaid sale ... transaction of immovable property was offered to tax in the said revised return of income. Thereafter, no action was taken by the Department and as such the revised return filed by the assessee has been accepted by the Department. 22. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions

ACIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Khandelwal Estate P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5521/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Vinita J. Menon, D.R

assessee therefore did not offer the income from sale of the said property in A.Y. 2003-04. However, a revised return was filed for A.Y. 2003-04 on 08.04.08 in respect of the said income in response to the notice issued under section 148 by the AO, the aforesaid sale ... transaction of immovable property was offered to tax in the said revised return of income. Thereafter, no action was taken by the Department and as such the revised return filed by the assessee has been accepted by the Department. 22. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions

ACIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Khandelwal Estate P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5520/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Vinita J. Menon, D.R

assessee therefore did not offer the income from sale of the said property in A.Y. 2003-04. However, a revised return was filed for A.Y. 2003-04 on 08.04.08 in respect of the said income in response to the notice issued under section 148 by the AO, the aforesaid sale ... transaction of immovable property was offered to tax in the said revised return of income. Thereafter, no action was taken by the Department and as such the revised return filed by the assessee has been accepted by the Department. 22. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions

Khandelwal Estates P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5215/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5215 & 5521/M/2010, Ita No.5492/M/2011 & "नधा"रण वष" M/S. Khandelwal Estates Pvt. Acit 10(1), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Sani Arma, Mumbai -400 020 बनाम/Vs. Raut Lane, बनाम बनाम बनाम Near Isckon Temple, Juhu, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 049 Pan: Aaack2613E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Vinita J. Menon, D.R

assessee therefore did not offer the income from sale of the said property in A.Y. 2003-04. However, a revised return was filed for A.Y. 2003-04 on 08.04.08 in respect of the said income in response to the notice issued under section 148 by the AO, the aforesaid sale ... transaction of immovable property was offered to tax in the said revised return of income. Thereafter, no action was taken by the Department and as such the revised return filed by the assessee has been accepted by the Department. 22. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions

T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Limited, Madurai vs. JCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 472/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S.A. Balasubramanyan, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. B. Nischal, IRS, JCIT

Section 10(33)Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

spare parts, accessories, petroleum products and lubricants and filed return of income on 29.09.2009 admitting total income of "24,41,60,868/-. Subsequently filed revised return of income on 10.06.2010 admitting total income at "24,42,84,932/- and was processed u/s.143(1) on 30.03.2011 and the said intimation

ACIT, Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in I

ITA 1734/CHNY/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Quadir Hoseyn, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan, CIT

Section 115Section 115WSection 37(2)

under Industrial Development loan was omitted to be considered for the purpose. The revised claim of the assessee can be considered only on a revised return, the Assessing Officer has not accepted the revised claim in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Goetze (India

M/S Sharavathy Conductors (P) Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/32772/2009HC Karnataka04 Jan 2016

Bench: The Honourable Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.32772 Of 2009 (T-Tar) Between: M/S. Sharavathy Conductors (Private) Limited, Represented By Its Managing Director Sri. Kaardam Patel, Son Of Late Sri. S.D.Patel, Aged About 39 Years, No.23, Bci Estate, 6Th Main, Old Madras Road, Bangalore 560 016. …Petitioner (By Shri A. Shankar, Advocate)

Section 143(1)Section 264Section 5Section 80HSection 80I

Annexure-A1 and the order of second revision petition dated 13.02.2007 vide Annexure-A1 and to direct the second respondent to duly process the revised return filed by the petitioner and allow the refund claimed. This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following ... India, (1996) 222 ITR 606. Pursuant to the affirmation of the test as laid down, the 4 petitioner was advised to file a revised return. Accordingly, the revised return of income was filed declaring the total income as nil. The petitioner had not claimed deduction under Section 80HHC

ACIT 13(2), Mumbai vs. Suryakant H Gandhi, Mumbai

ITA 4758/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.M. Utture-DR

Section 133ASection 142Section 143Section 148Section 254(1)

Chandrakant & Co. (HCC) and Gandhi Exim(GE). He filed his return on 30.3.2007 declaring income of Rs.1.09 lacs. On 26.9.2007 he filed revised return declaring income of Rs.47,870/-.The AO reopened the case after issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act.He finalised the assessment

M/S Star Gold Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT, Cir -5(3), Mumbai

ITA 2655/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.M. Utture (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 24(1)Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

business of providing facilities and infrastructure for business, filed its return of income on 30.09.2009,declaring income at Rs.1.07 Crores. Later on,a revised return of income was filed on 16.08.2010 at total income of Rs. 1.13 Crores.Initially the return was processed u/s.143(1)of the Act.Later

Strapping Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 1926/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No. 1926/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No. 1927/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2004-05 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Strapping Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) 703, Autumn Grove, Lokhandwala Aayakar Bhavan Township, Kandivali -East Vs Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400 101 Pan: Aafcs 5628 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya-Ar िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Sachidanand Dubey-Dr सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2015 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 आदेश 1961 1961 क" 1961 क" धारा धारा 254 254 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त 254 अ"तग"त 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 सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dt.10.01.2012 Of Cit(A)-20,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeals.Effective Grounds Of Appeal For Both The Years Is Confirmation Of Penalty Order Levied By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya-ARFor Respondent: Shri Sachidanand Dubey-DR

Section 10ASection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

instead of under section 80IB. The assessee submitted to the AO that this claim be considered under section 80IB. He also filed a revised return in this respect. However, the AO rejected the claim of the assessee. It has been time and again held that the taxing authorities should

Stelmet Marketing, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(3), Mumbai

ITA 8599/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Feroze Andhyarujjina -ARFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Nikhalje-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

Assessee-firm,engaged in the business of indenting agency,filed its return of income on 30. 09. 2008,declaring income at Rs.74.20 lakhs.Subsequently,a revised return of income was filed on 27.03.2010 at total income of Rs.30.96 lakhs.The the Assessing Officer(AO)completed the assessment on 27.12.2010,u/s.143

ACIT 9(1), Mumbai vs. Envision Investment and Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 8041/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainअपील संसंसंसं/./././.Ita /8041/Mum/2011, िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील Acit-Range-9(1) Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.402, 4Th Floor, Vyapar Room No.223, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Vs Bhavan,386/370, Narsi Natha Mumbai-400 020. Street, Masjid (W),Mumbai-9. Pan: Aaace 2990 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/./././.Ita /7896/Mum/2011, िनधा"रण आयकर अपील वष" / Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Acit-Range-9(1) Ltd., Masjid (W) Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 009. Vs (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N.Pawar राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manjunath R. Swamy सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04-11-2015 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement: 01.01. 2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त 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 12.09.2011 Of The Cit(A)-19,Mumbai,The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross-Appeals For Above Mentioned Assessment Year (Ay.).

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N.PawarFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath R. Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

company,engaged in the business of share trading,filed its return of income on 30. 06.2008,declaring total income of Rs.78.52 crores.Later on,a revised return was filed on 07. 10.2009.The AO completed the assessment on 10.12.2009,u/s.143(3) of the Act,determining the income of the assessee at Rs.1

Envision Investment Consultants P. Ltd( Formerly Called Envison Investment and Fiance P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 9(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 7896/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainअपील संसंसंसं/./././.Ita /8041/Mum/2011, िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील Acit-Range-9(1) Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd.402, 4Th Floor, Vyapar Room No.223, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Vs Bhavan,386/370, Narsi Natha Mumbai-400 020. Street, Masjid (W),Mumbai-9. Pan: Aaace 2990 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/./././.Ita /7896/Mum/2011, िनधा"रण आयकर अपील वष" / Assessment Year-2008-09 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Acit-Range-9(1) Ltd., Masjid (W) Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 009. Vs (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N.Pawar राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manjunath R. Swamy सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04-11-2015 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement: 01.01. 2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त 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 12.09.2011 Of The Cit(A)-19,Mumbai,The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross-Appeals For Above Mentioned Assessment Year (Ay.).

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N.PawarFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath R. Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

company,engaged in the business of share trading,filed its return of income on 30. 06.2008,declaring total income of Rs.78.52 crores.Later on,a revised return was filed on 07. 10.2009.The AO completed the assessment on 10.12.2009,u/s.143(3) of the Act,determining the income of the assessee at Rs.1

Tata Sons Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT Sp RG 1, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4307/MUM/2011[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 1993-94

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.9096 & 9097/Mum/2010, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-1992-93 & 1993-94 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit-2(3), M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. Room No.-555 Vs. Bombay House, 24, Homi Modi Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Pan No.Aaact 4060 A (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No. 4307/Mum/2011 (Assessment Year:1993-94) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील M/S. Tata Sons Ltd. Dcit-2(3), Fort, Mumbai-400 001. Vs. Room No.-555 Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By :Sh. Dinesh Vyas-Ar ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By :Sh. Manjunatha R. Swamy-Cit-Dr सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18- 11 -2015 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग" अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग" अ"तग" आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dt.5.5.10 & 7.10.2010 Of The Cit(A)-Vi, Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao)Has Filed The Present Appeals.The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of Cit-2, Dated 6.7.2010,Passed U/S.263 Of The Act.As All The Appeals Are Related With The Similar Issue,So For Sake Of Convenience We Are Adjudicating All The Three Appeals By A Single Common Order.

For Appellant: Sh. Dinesh Vyas-ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manjunatha R. Swamy-CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80H

order. ITA/9096/Mum/2010(AY92-93): 2.The assessee had filed its return of income on 30.12.92 declaring income of Rs.1, 15, 56, 340/-.Later on a revised return of income was filed on 31.3.94.The AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 31.3.1995 determining the income of the assessee

DCIT 9(1), Mumbai vs. Envision Investment & Finance P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 2322/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.2322/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 Acit-Range-9(1) Envision Investment & Finance Room No.223, Aayakar Bhavan Pvt. Ltd. 402, 4Th Floor, Vyapar Bhavan M.K. Road Vs Mumbai-400 020. 386/370, Narsi Natha Street Masjid (W) Mumbai-400 009. Pan: Aaace 2990 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.1376/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 Envision Investment & Finance Pvt. Acit-Range-9(1) Ltd., Masjid (W) Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 009. Vs (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari & Ms. Rutuja N.PawarFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath R. Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

2.Assessee-company,engaged in the business of share trading, filed its return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs.32.06. crores.Later on, a revised return,disclosing income of Rs.31.94 crores was filed on 07.10.2009.The AO completed the assessment on 14. 12.2009, u/s 143(3) of the Act,determining

Samira Merchant, Mumbai vs. I.T.O.-19(3)(4)`, Mumbai

ITA 1804/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.1804/Mum/2011 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2003-04 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.5797/Mum/2012 िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2005-06 वष" Mrs. Samira Merchant Income Tax Officer-19(3)-4 Room No.304, 3Rd Floor, Flat No.1001/1002 Vastu Bandra, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug B.J. Road/Pereira Road Parel,Mumbai-400 012. Bandra (W),Mumbai-400 050. Pan:Aczpm 1844 M (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर : Shri Satish R. Mody राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By :Sh. Sachidanand Dubey-Dr सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" सुनवाई क" क" तारीख क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing :18- 11 -2015 तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश 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 Orders Dated 28.01.11And 18.6.12 Of Cit(A)-30 The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years.The Dates Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes Dates Of Asst Order & Assessed Income Can Be Summarised As Under :- A.Y. Roi Filed On Returned Income(Rs.) Assessment Dt. Assessed Income (Rs.) 2003-04 22.09.2003 78,625/- 29.08.2008 37,36,548/- 2005-06 31.08.2005 1,00,248/- 19.12.2007 21,64,290/-

For Respondent: Sh. Sachidanand Dubey-DR

Section 148Section 254(1)

Rs.25.53 lacs and Rs.21.89 lacs respectively, that she did not offer LTCG for taxation in her original return of income, that in the revised return filed after issue of notice u/s. 148 LTCG offered for taxation.He further found that for the purpose of cost of acquisition the fair market value