← 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.

Madhya Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal
241 ITR 124 · 2000 · High Court
89
citing judgments

A penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied if an assessee files a revised return to buy peace and avoid litigation, and the revenue accepts this without objection.

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.

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

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1246/AHD/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271Section 69

restricting claim of depreciation on fixed assets to Rs.1,24,37,88,0937- as against Rs. 1,31,10,13,350/- claimed in the revised return filed on 30.3.2005 without giving evidence thereon whatsoever. The additional ground of appeal was admitted on which no submissions were made by the appellant ... Appeal) failed to appreciate that the claim of depreciation was revised by the appellant well before the re-opening of the assessment and a Revised Return for the same was also filed on 30-03-2005. However, while completing the reassessment proceedings under section

Ajay Jaisinghani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 972/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: DR. K. R. Subhash (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 55(2)(aa)Section 55(2)(ac)

further adjudication before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR further stated that the assessee can raise the additional claim only by way of revised returns and not by a regular appeal as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India ... Section 143 of the Act. Further, in order to make an additional claim the recourse to the assessee is to file a revised return u/s. 139(5) of the Act within the specified time or to raise a claim before the ld. CIT(A) in an appeal against a valid

Rishabh Consumer Products Private Limited, Vashi vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5902/MUM/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2009-10 Rishabh Consumer Products Dcit-15(3)(1), Private Limited, Room No. 451, C/450-4 Ttc Midc Pawne, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Thane, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400705. Pan : Aaccr8140D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 143(1)Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 274Section 61Section 64

erred in assessing total income at Rs. 1,90,85,458/- 6. The Ld. AO has erred in not considering the revised return of income filed by the assessee. 7. The Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty u/s 271 of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings

Rogi Kalyan Samiti Chital, Chital Amreli vs. ITO Exemption Ward-2 Rajkot, Rajkot

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

ITA 328/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.328/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Rogi Kalyan Samiti Chital, Income Tax Officer C. H. C. Chital, Chital District, Vs. (Exemption), Ward – 2, Rajkot Amreli-365 601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aactr 0652 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 234A

from CPC, and as per intimation, the CPC has not given credit of deduction u/s. 11 hence assessee has filed its revised return, as on 31st December 2014 and claimed exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Act. The assessee has not received any fresh intimation from CPC. Later ... intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, which is placed at paper book page no.43 to 48. Therefore, the assessee trust has filed revised return of income on 31/12/2014, claiming deduction of Rs. 3,46,746/- u/s 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Act. The assessee has furnished a copy

Ajinkya Madhyamik Shikshak Sevak Sah. Patsanstha, Maryadit, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Satara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2214/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

time allowed under that notice or by 31st May 2021, whichever is later. d) Filing of belated return under sub-section (4) and revised return under sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the income-tax Act 1961 for Assessment Year 2020-21, which was required to be filed ... filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file revised return making such claim, its claim for deduction under section 80-IA is maintainable. Therefore, where assessee had filed return under section

Kaycee Finstock Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6688/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjeekaycee Finstock Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 7Th 705, Floor, Maker Tax -2(1)(1), Mumbai Chamber V, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai Pan : Aacck6191P Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi– Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee suomotu disallowed the impugned expenditure and accepted an addition of Rs.1,76,88,923/-. However, no revised return was filed by the assessee. It is evident that had the case not been selected for scrutiny, the said disallowance would not have come

Avichal Kulshrestha, London vs. ITO Ward 35(7), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1580/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 54FSection 69B

return of income for AY 2017-18 on 05.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.64,15,310/- and subsequently, on 2 03.08.2018, the assessee revised return of income declaring total income of Rs.24,07,710/-. The same was processed under section 143 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ... Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason of reduction of income in revised return and claim of refund. Subsequently notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee through ITBA portal. In response, assessee filed relevant

DCIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi vs. Al Ammar Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2180/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 44ASection 80I

brought forward business losses and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.6,93,916/- and Rs.2,31,15,712/- respectively were not adjusted in this revised return. Hence, in order to rectify the aforesaid error, the Assessee Company filed a second revised return dated 10.11.2020 under Section 139(5) of the Act which ... well as the correct adjustment of carried forward losses and depreciation. It is pertinent to note that the aforementioned revised returns were filed within the extended timeline provided by CBDT Circular dated 30.09.2020, which allowed filing of revised returns for AY 2019-20 up to 30.11.2020 under Section

Tadikamalla Poorna Chandra Sekhara Rao, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Srikakkulam

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

ITA 83/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.83/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Tadikamalla Poorna Chandra Sekhara Rao V. Income Tax Officer 12-6-36/4/9, Flat No. 408 Palakonda Road – 532001 Andhra Pradesh Mjr Solitaire, Moosapet Balanagar, Sanathnagar Ie -530018 Telangana [Pan: Abbpt5790J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 154

stated by appellant, the difference has occurred due to entries in wrong columns of return of income. The appellant has not filed a revised return correcting these entries. The processing done by CPC is on the basis of entries made by an assessee. On perusal of Schedule CG: Capital Gains

Bee Gee Construction Co, Mohali vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Chandigarh

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 597/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.597/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Dcit Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh Road Aaykar Bhawan Nac Zirakpur-140603 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.572/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Aaykar Bhawan Chandigarh Road Vs. Chandigarh Nac Zirakpur-140603 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80A

made in the original return of income. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IB for Rs.242.20 Lacs for the first time in its revised return of income filed on 14-03-2012. Further, the project was approved by Municipal Corporation, Kharar on 24-05-2006 and as such the project ... local authority was not submitted by the assessee. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 30-03-2018 against which the assessee offered same revised return of income. The assessee’s objections to reopening were dismissed by Ld. AO vide order dated 22-12-2018. 3.2 During the course

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh vs. Bee Gee Construction Co, Chandigarh

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 572/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.597/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Dcit Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Vs. Chandigarh Road Aaykar Bhawan Nac Zirakpur-140603 Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.572/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit M/S Bee Gee Construction Co Circle 3 (1) बनाम/ Sco-1 Neelkanth Shopping Plaza Aaykar Bhawan Chandigarh Road Vs. Chandigarh Nac Zirakpur-140603 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aahfb-1882-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-05-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. The Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)]

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80Section 80A

made in the original return of income. The assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IB for Rs.242.20 Lacs for the first time in its revised return of income filed on 14-03-2012. Further, the project was approved by Municipal Corporation, Kharar on 24-05-2006 and as such the project ... local authority was not submitted by the assessee. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 30-03-2018 against which the assessee offered same revised return of income. The assessee’s objections to reopening were dismissed by Ld. AO vide order dated 22-12-2018. 3.2 During the course

Vivek Tiwari, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle 3, Suri

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

ITA 163/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

sheet, it was noted that the income from capital gains shown at Rs. 68,28,041/- was not correct which as per the final revised return at pages 22 to 27 of the paper book was shown at Rs. ‘NIL’ on account of short term capital gains earned outside I.T.A

DCIT-2 1 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Iss Facility Services India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2208/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 10(35)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 250

entertain a fresh claim made by the assessee, even if such a claim was not made in return of income or by way of revised return of income. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we find no merit in the findings of the learned CIT(A) in rejecting the aforesaid

Kbs Creation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm. of Income Tax -Circle 24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the concise ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6477/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 80ISection 92C

working to the JAO that total return income of assessee is of Rs. 50.97 crore, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 8.38 crore, thus, revised return before deduction under section 10AA is Rs. 59.35 crore and income entitled for deduction under section 10AA as per ITR is Rs. 16.77 crore ... extracted below; Particulars Amount in Rs. Returned income 50,97,47,100/- Add: Deduction under section 10AA 8,83,48,870/- Revised return of income before deduction u/s 10AA 59,35,95,970/- Income entitled for deduction u/s 10AA as per ITR 16,77,41,466/- Less: Proposed variation

Blossom Inners Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 826/COCH/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Omanakuttan, Snr AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 40Section 80J

proceedings issued u/s. 143(1) when: (i) The original return was filed within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) and (ii) The revised return was filed claiming deduction u/s 80JJAA together with the report in Form 10DA within the due date prescribed ... grossly erred in not allowing a valid claim made u/s 80JJAA in a valid return filed within the due date prescribed for filing the revised return together with the Form 10DA. Learned Addl/JCIT(A)-1 erred in dismissing the appeal stating that the appeal was filed for condoning the delay

Balasubramaniam Venkitachalam, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

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

ITA 827/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.827/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Balasubramaniam Venkitachalam, Income Tax Officer, No.38/34-P.V.G Nagar, Ward-1(2), Valayankadu Extention, Tiruppur. Samundipuram, Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu-641 603. [Pan: Adwpb0330R] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate(Erode) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate(Erode)For Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 69A

details comprising financial statements to this effect were filed. The Ld.CIT(A) however concluded that because the assessee has failed to offer any revised return the new hypothesis cannot be accepted. The assessee has filed all the submissions and documents made before lower Page - 2 - of 6 authorities to indicate

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Sanjay Chowdary Gaddipati, Hyderabad

ITA 376/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 54F(4)

filed his return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 on 31.07.2022, declaring an income of Rs.71,08,871/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 31.12.2022 declaring the same income as was originally returned. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment

DCIT., Circle-13(1), Hyderabad vs. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 308/HYD/2024[AY-2020-2]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)
Section 40A(9)

they are to be literally construed, more particularly in a case of exemption sought by an assessee. 9. In such a situation, filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act claiming carrying forward of losses Page ... assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into

DCIT., Circle-13(1), Hyderabad vs. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, Kothagudem

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 300/HYD/2024[2015--16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)
Section 40A(9)

they are to be literally construed, more particularly in a case of exemption sought by an assessee. 9. In such a situation, filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act claiming carrying forward of losses Page ... assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Kothagudem vs. ACIT., Circle-1, Khammam

In the result, assessee’s appeals for the A

ITA 284/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.283, 284 & 286/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Singareni Collieries Vs. Acit, Circle – 1 Company Limited Khammam & Kothagudem Acit, Circle 13(1) Pan:Aaact8873F Hyderabad & आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.300, 301 & 308/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21) Vs. Singareni Collieries Dy. Cit, Circle 13(1) Company Limited Hyderabad Kothagudem Pan:Aaact8873F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B Balakrishna, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 10/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/06/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench: These 3 Sets Of Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders All Dated 30/01/2024 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, For The A.Ys 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2020-21 Respectively. The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Have Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeals For 3 A.Ys:

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B Balakrishna, CIT (DR)
Section 40A(9)

they are to be literally construed, more particularly in a case of exemption sought by an assessee. 9. In such a situation, filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act claiming carrying forward of losses Page ... assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into