← 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

Ch.Chandrasekhar Naidu, Proddatur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-(2), Hyderabad

ITA 834/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 37

before the first appellate authority. 14. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the factual matrix that the assessee had filed a revised return of income electronically on 07.01.2013 and that the AO has erred in not taking into consideration the same ROI and erred in not issuing ... erred in not considering the legal position that the AO had assessed the income of the assessee without considering the revised return of income filed by the assessee electronically on 07.01.2013 well before the assessment is made which are within the time prescribed

Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2844/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues:- S. No. Issues i. ii. iii. iv. V. vi. vii. viii. Increase in TDS in Revised Return Claim of Any Other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP High Creditors/ liabilities Refund Claim ICDS Compliance and Adjustment Securities Transaction Capital Gains/Income on Sale ... receipt declared in ITR. Please submit the explanation for the same. And submit the deatails of liabilities in detais. 4. As you have filed revised return for the said assessment year it is seen that you have significantly claimed higher TDS in the revised ITR. Kindly reconcile it with

M/S Punjab & Maharastra Co-Op. Bank Ltd (Now Amalgamated With M/S Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd ), Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2172/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi and Ms. Dinkle Haria, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 9(1)

Maharashtra Cooperative Society Act, 1960. 3.1. Assessee had filed an application before Central Board of Taxes (CBDT) to enabling it to file belated revised returns based on its re-cast financial statements. CBDT enabled the assessee to file the same. Assessee filed its return u/s.119(2)(b) as noted ... Bank Ltd. (Now amalgamated with M/s. Unity Small Finance Bank Ltd.), AY 2018-19 Officer records that impugned assessment is completed on the revised return filed in response to application made u/s.119(2)(b), wherein the assessee was able to file the return as original return. In para-6.5, income/loss

Gaurishankar Sewa Samiti, Nandura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Nagpur

ITA 73/NAG/2024[2021-20222]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025
For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 12ASection 143(1)(a)Section 154

07/04/2022 (Unique Registration Number: AABTG2269EF20211). The assessee has also filed the Rectification Application on under section 154 before Assessing Officer (CPC). In the said revised return of income, the assessee has mentioned his new Unique Registration Number. The same is pending for rectification. The assessee further submitted that the order

Deendayal Seva Pratishthan, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward-4, Exemption, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 547/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 139(4)

they needed to revise both the ITR and form 9A. If they were not able to revise form 9A, they could have easily filed revised return revising the details of income as required since the time limit for revised and belated returns was extended up to 31/05/2021 ... applicable in the instant case. But it is noted that there was no attempt by the appellant trust on filing such revised return. It is also noted that they tried to file the revised Form 9A in paper form with the office of its jurisdictional AO on 25/07/2021 ie after

ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Dp Chocolates, Hyderabad

ITA 1381/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 3Section 80I

Whether CIT(A) was right in holding that for claiming deduction U/s.80IC, the revised computation of total income is sufficient and a revised return is not required to be filed. 2. Apart from the above principle ground of appeal, any other ground deemed fit that may be craved ... same time was of the view that as the said modified claim for deduction was not raised by the assessee company by filing a revised return of income, therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income

Income Tax Officer Ward 21(1), Delhi, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate vs. Rampur Engineering Company Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3085/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Lal chandani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 68

assessee on accountof cash credit. Further, it is also to be noticed that the Sh. Sanjay Guptahas not produced the revised return at the time of framing assessmentunder section 143(3) of the Act which was completed on 30-12-2017 andthe same has now been produced at the time

At & T Global Network Services India Private Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), New Delhi

ITA 1576/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dharm Veer Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

that even an appellate authority under the provision of the Act, could entertain a new claim in absence of a revised return. We thus deem it as a fit case to accept the assessee’s instant seventh ground and direct the learned Assessing Officer to frame his consequential computation

ACIT, Circle- 26(2), New Delhi vs. Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 8079/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

actually incurred the expenditure, but the expenditures were disallowed because of difference of opinion between the assessee and the Assessing Officer. The revised return was filed because some of the expenditures were disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for year 1998-89, although the expenditures were not doubted. There are cases ... between the assessee and the Assessing Officer, it cannot be said that the assessee has intention to conceal the income. The filing of the revised return, excluding some of the disallowed expenditure and claiming expenditure of INR 2 crores which was actually spent by the assessee in the relevant assessment

ACIT, Circle-26(2), New Delhi vs. Vodafone West Ltd., (Thereafter Merged With Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 7658/DEL/2018[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

actually incurred the expenditure, but the expenditures were disallowed because of difference of opinion between the assessee and the Assessing Officer. The revised return was filed because some of the expenditures were disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for year 1998-89, although the expenditures were not doubted. There are cases ... between the assessee and the Assessing Officer, it cannot be said that the assessee has intention to conceal the income. The filing of the revised return, excluding some of the disallowed expenditure and claiming expenditure of INR 2 crores which was actually spent by the assessee in the relevant assessment

Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(6), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of both the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 263/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 261/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Palani, Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Vs. Circle (Osd)-1, Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Trichy. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Ahipp3281F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 262 & 263/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Non Corporate Ward 1(6) Chennai. Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 Vs. [Pan: Axsps3623E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No. 261/Chny/2025 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

assessment year 2017-18 for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his revised return of income on 30.03.2019 for the assessment year 2017- 18. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to examine large value of cash deposits ... Assessing Officer marked the return filed by the assessee as invalid due to the e-verification not done by the assessee. Further, the revised return submitted by the assessee on 15.05.2015 also marked as invalid for the same reason. No more information is available in the assessment order passed under

Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(6), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of both the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 261/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Palani, Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Vs. Circle (Osd)-1, Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Trichy. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Ahipp3281F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 262 & 263/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Non Corporate Ward 1(6) Chennai. Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 Vs. [Pan: Axsps3623E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No. 261/Chny/2025 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

assessment year 2017-18 for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his revised return of income on 30.03.2019 for the assessment year 2017- 18. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to examine large value of cash deposits ... Assessing Officer marked the return filed by the assessee as invalid due to the e-verification not done by the assessee. Further, the revised return submitted by the assessee on 15.05.2015 also marked as invalid for the same reason. No more information is available in the assessment order passed under

Mr. Palani, Chennai vs. ITO, Cirlce(OSD)-1, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals of both the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 261/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 261/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Palani, Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Vs. Circle (Osd)-1, Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Trichy. Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan: Ahipp3281F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 262 & 263/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Mrs. Balu Sugunalatha, The Income Tax Officer, No. 7/5, 3Rd Floor, Meenakshi Non Corporate Ward 1(6) Chennai. Apartments, P.S. Sivaswamy Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004 Vs. [Pan: Axsps3623E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Ms. Jharna B. Harilal, Ca : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In Ita No. 261/Chny/2025 Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

assessment year 2017-18 for adjudication. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his revised return of income on 30.03.2019 for the assessment year 2017- 18. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS to examine large value of cash deposits ... Assessing Officer marked the return filed by the assessee as invalid due to the e-verification not done by the assessee. Further, the revised return submitted by the assessee on 15.05.2015 also marked as invalid for the same reason. No more information is available in the assessment order passed under

Gujarat Agro Industries Corporation, Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 901/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: The Ao. The Ao Will Verify The Same. If The Claim Of The Assessee Is Found To Be Justified, Then No Addition Should Be Made, Irrespective Of The Fact That The Assessee Has Earlier Declared Higher Income In The Return Of Income.

Section 143(3)Section 270A

assessee. He held that the assessee itself has declared income of Rs.23,14,67,690/- in the return of income, and no revised return was filed by the assessee. He therefore refused to go through

Shri Ganapati Devasthan Trust, Baramati vs. DCIT(Exemption Circle), Pune

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

ITA 2313/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Ganapati Devasthan Trust Dcit Siddheshwar Galli, Baramati, Vs. (Exemption Circle), Maharashtra – 413102 Pune Pan: Aants4193D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Vaze Department By : Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-03-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A VazeFor Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 147Section 148

made before the Assessing Officer as there is no provision under the Income Tax Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. He, therefore, rejected the fresh claim made by the assessee without filing the revised return. He further noted that the proceedings ... asset. However, the AO denied the exemption under Section 11(1A) on procedural grounds, as the claim was not made in the original or revised return. While the appellant's submission is supported by judicial precedents and guidelines with a broader interpretation of Section 11(1A), the procedural requirements

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 15(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5721/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5721/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) Strides Pharma Science Limited V/S. Ito 15(3)(2), बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, New 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Blrs03808A .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 16.01.2025 20.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 06.09.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 37(1)

Strides Pharma Science Limited deemed income u/s 115JB of the Act of Rs.129,55,76,399/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 25.03.2021 declaring a total income of Rs. 62,76,46,192/- and deemed income u/s 115JB of Rs.129,55,76,398/- and the assessment was completed

Kawarilal, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2832/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 132Section 153CSection 270A

income admitted by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act, has been accepted. In the revised return filed u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee has admitted taxable income of Rs.2,55,35,485/- which is higher than the last return filed

Kawarilal, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cricle-1(2) Chennai, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2831/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 132Section 153CSection 270A

income admitted by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.153A of the Act, has been accepted. In the revised return filed u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee has admitted taxable income of Rs.2,55,35,485/- which is higher than the last return filed

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham-Kutch vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 366/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

The Assistant Commr. of Income Tax, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S Kutch Salt & Allied Industries Ltd., Gandhidham

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/RJT/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhait (Ss)A No.233& 234 & 235 & 236 /Rjt/2016 Assessment Year: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Kutch Salt & Allied Gandhidham Circle, Industries Ltd., Gandhidham - Kutch Maitri Bhavan, Plot No.-18, Sector-8, Gandhidham - Kutch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaact1769L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia,Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN