← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nungambakkam vs. Pinnathevar Palanichamy, Madurai

ITA 3015/CHNY/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Apr 2025
For Appellant: Mr.Shivanand K. Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132

Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs in the house for family expenses and educational expenses of his daughter, respectively. It was also noted that the revised return was filed by the seller wherein he had shown approximately Rs.2.5 lakhs being available with him in cash. Even after giving the retraction

Bank of Baroda (Erstwhile Dena Bank ), Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Incometax Circle -2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1654/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. & Ms. Padmavathy S., Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

under dispute, assessee had filed its return of income on 30.09.2019 declaring loss of Rs.5163,86,13,556/-. Subsequently, the assessee also filed a revised return of income claiming brought forward loss. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.4620

L & T Infrastructure Finance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Cir-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2890/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarl&T Infrastructure Finance Vs. The Pr. Cit – 6 Company Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, (Merged With L&T Finance Mk Road, Holdings Ltd., Renamed As Mumbai – 400 020. L&T Finance Ltd.) Plot 177, Brindavan Bldg, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai -400 098 Pan/Gir No. Aabcl2283L (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(vii)

year, the assessee reported a book loss of Rs. 37,84,41,697/- u/s 115JB in the original return of income. However, in the revised return of income, an erroneous amount of Rs. 2,69,73,94,318/- was determined due to the profit after tax being inadvertently recorded

Income Tax Officer-Ward-6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1495/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

making strategic investments. The assessee had e-filed its return of income dated 28.09.2017, declaring a loss at Rs. 33,570/- and had filed revised return dated 20.03.2018, declaring loss of Rs. 75,25,056/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices

Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1493/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

making strategic investments. The assessee had e-filed its return of income dated 28.09.2017, declaring a loss at Rs. 33,570/- and had filed revised return dated 20.03.2018, declaring loss of Rs. 75,25,056/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices

Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1159/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

making strategic investments. The assessee had e-filed its return of income dated 28.09.2017, declaring a loss at Rs. 33,570/- and had filed revised return dated 20.03.2018, declaring loss of Rs. 75,25,056/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices

Kohinoor Planet Constructions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1158/MUM/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am & Kohinoor Planet Constructions Pvt. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, Circle 6(3)(1) 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Senapati Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400028. 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) & Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1) Kohinoor Planet Constructions Room No. 524, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pvt. Ltd. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai – 3, Kohinoor Corporate Office, Vs. 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai – 400028. Pan/Gir No. Aabcr6994E (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia : Shri. Biswanath Das – Cit Dr. Respondent By : 30.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short)

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh DadiaFor Respondent: 30.01.2025
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(2)Section 37Section 43CSection 68

making strategic investments. The assessee had e-filed its return of income dated 28.09.2017, declaring a loss at Rs. 33,570/- and had filed revised return dated 20.03.2018, declaring loss of Rs. 75,25,056/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices

International Air Transport Association, Mumbai (for Sending Notices) vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3330/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3330/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) International Air V/S. Dcit (It), Circle 2(2)(1), Transport Association बिधम Mumbai C/O Ernst & Young Llp Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor, 14Th Floor, The Ruby, 29, Air India Building, Senapati Bapat Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Dadar (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400021 Maharashtra-400028 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aacci4695N Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka and Shri DiveshFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

branch) for which a separate return is filed. The return declaring income of Rs. 12,55,83,950/- has been filed on 15.02.2021. A revised return was subsequently filed on 25.05.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 11,99,57,430/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and assessment was completed

Jayantibhai Jivabhai Patel, Bharuch vs. Ward No. 1(1), Bharuch

In the result, the penalty imposed under Section 270A of the Act is directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee succeeds

ITA 962/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. DR
Section 270(9)Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)

year. The assessee had opted for voluntary retirement under the VRS scheme formulated by the company and received retirement benefits. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return on 20.12.2020 reducing the taxable income to Rs. 51,55,620/- and claiming refund of Rs. 4,35,450/-. Jayantibhai Jivabhai Patel ... assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 11,54,210/- by comparing the original return of income filed by the assessee with the revised return and thereafter taking the income figures declared by the assessee in the original return of income, as the taxable income of the assessee. Further

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Kota

Appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned PCIT is hereby set aside

ITA 566/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, Feeling Dissatisfied With The Order Dated 19.03.2025 Passed By Learned Pcit

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 263Section 41Section 90

trading of fertilizer and allied products in India. As per case of the department, which is not disputed on behalf of the assessee, revised return of income was filed on 29.05.2021, thereby, once again declaring total income of Rs. 3,63,30,01,380/- and deemed total income u/s 115JB ... initially declared in the original ITR. Said revised return is stated to have been selected for complete scrutiny, on the following 11 issues:- 3 ITA No. 566/JPR/2025 & SA No. 10/JPR/2025 Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota i. Double Taxation Relief u/s 90/91. ii. Stock Valuation iii. Increase

Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), Haldia, Aayakr Bhavan vs. Contai Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited, Vill-Contai, Purba Medinipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1809/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

operative Societies Act and Rules, filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 declaring total income at Rs. 29,55,350/- and revised return have also been filed declaring total income same. The case was selected for scrutiny, notice u/s 143(2) was issued. Notice

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 27(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Haldia vs. Contai Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited., Contai, Purba Medinipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1731/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

operative Societies Act and Rules, filed its return of income for AY 2018-19 declaring total income at Rs. 29,55,350/- and revised return have also been filed declaring total income same. The case was selected for scrutiny, notice u/s 143(2) was issued. Notice

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. M/S Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 2836/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

Appeal in ITA No.2732/CHNY/2024 - AY 2014-15: 9. The assessee filed its original return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 28.11.2014. The revised return of income was filed on 26.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs.6,57,88,98,760/- under normal provisions of the Act without altering

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2820/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Ajith Kumar Jain CA & Mr. Kunal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Mr. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43(5)

Appeal in ITA No.2732/CHNY/2024 - AY 2014-15: 9. The assessee filed its original return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 28.11.2014. The revised return of income was filed on 26.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs.6,57,88,98,760/- under normal provisions of the Act without altering

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Intl, Tax 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1240/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1240/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aban Offshore Limited, 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan: Aaaca 3012H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. International Taxation 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16, Dated 13.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Fact That The Order Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 13.03.2024 Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant :-2-:

Section 115ASection 195(2)Section 250Section 44BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

hereinafter the 'Act') for the assessment year 2014-15 on 28.11.2014 admitting total income of Rs.16,02,59,960/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed its revised return u/s.139(5) of the Act on 16.10.2015 & 26.11.2015 admitting `Nil' income. Later, the assessee's case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed

Nuvama Wealth Management Limited, Bandra East, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Cgo Building, Mumbai

ITA 480/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 1Section 115JSection 14A

engaged in providing broking services to its clients. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2018-19 on 30.11.2018 and a revised return on 29.03.2019 admitting a total loss of Rs.62,16,09,839/- and a book profit of Rs.9,49,48,746/-. The case was selected

Nuvama Wealth Management Limited, Bandra East, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Cgo Building, Mumbai

ITA 479/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui- Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 14A

engaged in providing broking services to its clients. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2018-19 on 30.11.2018 and a revised return on 29.03.2019 admitting a total loss of Rs. 62,16,09,839/- and a book profit of Rs. 9,49,48,746/-. The case

Niho Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 18(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3676/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Acit, Vs M/S. Nuwave E Solutions (P) Circle-13(1), Ltd., 3Rd Floor, District Centre, New Delhi Dda Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan-Aabcn5790Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gutpa, Adv., Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.03.2011 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Xvi, New Delhi [“Cit(A)”, In Short] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2010 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E- Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.08.2007, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 1,45,48,453/-. The Said Return Was Revised On 20.08.2008, Declaring The Same Income As Was Declared The Return Of Income Filed U/S 139(1). The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Various Queries Were Raised Which Were Replied By The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Export Of Software & 100% Eou Registered With Director Software Technology Park Of India In Terms Of Registration Certificate Dated 31.03.1999. The Major Shareholder In The Assessee Company Is Shri Anil Gutpa Who Is Having 99% Shareholding & Is Taking Substantial Interest In Day-To-Day Affairs Of The Assessee & Also In Its Associate Enterprises (“Ae”) At Us Who Is The Sole Buyer Of The Software Developed By The Assessee.

Section 10Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 801A

parcel of net profit derived from export of computer software and claimed deduction u/s 10A of the Act. It goes without saying that the revised return of income stood accepted by Ld. AO and that being so, there was no occasion for Ld. AO to deny the benefit of impugned ... respectively. Therefore, it is prayed that deduction w/s 104 on account of foreign exchange gain as claimed by the assessee in the revised return may please be allowed." 20. Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the order

Tiriyogi Narayan Singh, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor vs. ACIT, Circle-28, Aayakar Bhawan, Gariahat Road

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

ITA 1965/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1965/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Tiriyogi Narayan Singh, Vs Acit, Circle-28, Kolkata C/O: Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 Pan No. :Apmps 8395 D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashutosh Kumar Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21/08/2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-2014, On The Following Grounds :- 1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,82,18,524/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Oil & Fuel Expenses. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 53,40,091/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Truck Running Expenses As Against 80,35,546/-Claimed By The Assessee. 3. (A) For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Disallowance Of Rs. 3,71,736/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Finance Charges Paid For Acquisition Of Self Occupied House Property.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Kumar Sr. DR
Section 24

find that the Assessing Officer has made the addition only on the ground that there was certain differences between the original return and the revised return filed by the assessee, wherein the amount of depreciation claimed in revised return of income and original return of income was Rs.90 ... similar difference was there in the oil and fuel expenses i.e. as per the revised return of income and as per the original return of income, there was an increase in the fuel and oil expenses to the tune of Rs.90,73,007/-. Though the assessee furnished before the Assessing

Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range-4, New Delhi

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

ITA 7865/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

Accounts 4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts and in law by not deleting the addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer being Revised Return not considered. 5. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law by not giving the benefit of Incremental Special Reserve ... ground no 4 is with respect to addition sustained by the CIT(A) where the AO did not consider the revised Return. The brief facts in this case are that a revised return was filed by the assessee on 27.10.2006 for the following reasons: Arranger fees