← 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

Satyam Computer Services Limited, Hyderabad vs. The ACIT Central Range-3, Hyderabad

ITA 1253/HYD/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Mar 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 119

Assessment Year 2003- 04 to Assessment Year 2008-09 have been duly adjusted as prior period adjustments; iv. to permit the petitioner to file revised returns for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and Assessment Year 2008-09 based on the audited financial statements for the said years read together with ... revised financial statements of the petitioner Company for the year ending 31st March, 2009. The petitioner Company is further directed to file the revised return for the Assessment Year 2003-04 to 2008-09 based on the audited financial statements for the said years read with the audited financial statement

Satyam Computer Services Limited, Hyderabad vs. The ACIT Central Range-3, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee

ITA 1252/HYD/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Mar 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 119

Assessment Year 2003- 04 to Assessment Year 2008-09 have been duly adjusted as prior period adjustments; iv. to permit the petitioner to file revised returns for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and Assessment Year 2008-09 based on the audited financial statements for the said years read together with ... revised financial statements of the petitioner Company for the year ending 31st March, 2009. The petitioner Company is further directed to file the revised return for the Assessment Year 2003-04 to 2008-09 based on the audited financial statements for the said years read with the audited financial statement

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Priti Nilesh Jain Daga, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4616/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

transfer of long term securities (Illustrations) Assessment year 2014-15 Assessee filed its return for relevant year - Subsequently, pursuant to a survey assessee filed revised return and claimed exemption in respect of long-term capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made ... transfer of long term securities (Illustrations) Assessment year 2014-15 Assessee filed its return for relevant year - Subsequently, pursuant to a survey assessee filed revised return and claimed exemption in respect of long-term capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made

Priti Nilesh Jain Daga, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4507/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

transfer of long term securities (Illustrations) Assessment year 2014-15 Assessee filed its return for relevant year - Subsequently, pursuant to a survey assessee filed revised return and claimed exemption in respect of long-term capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made ... transfer of long term securities (Illustrations) Assessment year 2014-15 Assessee filed its return for relevant year - Subsequently, pursuant to a survey assessee filed revised return and claimed exemption in respect of long-term capital gains on shares under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer rejected assessee's plea and made

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd., Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 169/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

declaring total income of Rs.1,38,49,07,600/- after claiming deduction under chapter VI of Rs.39,95,65,655/-. The assessee filed a revised return on 31-03-2012 declaring total income of Rs.1,38,40,35,980/- and Book profit of Rs. 4.07 crores. The return was selected

Prakashchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC2(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 68/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.68/Chny/2024 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of V. 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ$/Appellant) (%&थ$/Respondent) अपीलाथ$कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate %&थ$कीओरसे /Respondent By Shri R. Clement Ramesh : Kumar, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2025 :

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 270A

response to notice u/s.153A of the Act, has been accepted. In the 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 revised return filed u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee has admitted revised return filed u/s.153A

Prakashchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 66/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

assessee, there should be a specific finding that there is deliberate and wilful suppression on the part of the assessee. In other words, the revised return will have be treated as voluntary one until the contrary is proved." Though the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue contended that ... case of Dr.R.Gopalakrishnan (supra) is of no relevance as it is factually distinguishable, no materials, more particularly, the copies of the revised returns filed by Dr.R.Gopalakrishnan, despite several opportunities granted by us, were produced to substantiate the same. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the review applicant

Prakashchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 64/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

assessee, there should be a specific finding that there is deliberate and wilful suppression on the part of the assessee. In other words, the revised return will have be treated as voluntary one until the contrary is proved." Though the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue contended that ... case of Dr.R.Gopalakrishnan (supra) is of no relevance as it is factually distinguishable, no materials, more particularly, the copies of the revised returns filed by Dr.R.Gopalakrishnan, despite several opportunities granted by us, were produced to substantiate the same. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the review applicant

Prakashchand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 61/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

assessee, there should be a specific finding that there is deliberate and wilful suppression on the part of the assessee. In other words, the revised return will have be treated as voluntary one until the contrary is proved." Though the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue contended that ... case of Dr.R.Gopalakrishnan (supra) is of no relevance as it is factually distinguishable, no materials, more particularly, the copies of the revised returns filed by Dr.R.Gopalakrishnan, despite several opportunities granted by us, were produced to substantiate the same. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the review applicant

Prakash Chand Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Chennai

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 60/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 60, 61, 64 & 66/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Years: 2013-14 , 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Prakashchand Jain, The Dy. Commissioner Of 39 & 40 Bakers Street, Vs. Income Tax, Choolai, Chennai – 600 112. Central Circle-2(3), Chennai. [Pan: Ahhpp 1690D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

assessee, there should be a specific finding that there is deliberate and wilful suppression on the part of the assessee. In other words, the revised return will have be treated as voluntary one until the contrary is proved." Though the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Revenue contended that ... case of Dr.R.Gopalakrishnan (supra) is of no relevance as it is factually distinguishable, no materials, more particularly, the copies of the revised returns filed by Dr.R.Gopalakrishnan, despite several opportunities granted by us, were produced to substantiate the same. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the review applicant

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Hridey Vikram Bhatia, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3173/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal, Acit, Circle-49(1), A-1/102, Ground Floor, New Delhi Janak Puri, Delhi Pan: Aaapg4996R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80G

Goyal Iron & Steel Traders. Assessee filed his original Return of Income on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 22,79,120/- and a revised Return of Income was also filed on 30.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 21,79,120/-. In revised return, the assessee claimed 50% deduction

Kuldeep Singh Shekhawat, Kota vs. ITO W-2(1), Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

construction, without resorting to the Capital Gains Account Scheme, can be made till the date of belated return under section 139(4) or revised return under section 139(5) as the wordings used in section 54(2) is "section 139", and not section 139(1), which covers all sub-sections

Sivakumar Chiluvuri, Telangana vs. ADIT (Int Taxn)-1, Hyderabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1367/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA Balaji VenkatsubramaniamFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

return of income on 31.07.2018 for the assessment year 2018-2019 declaring total income of Rs.1,81,12,866/-. The assessee has filed revised return of 2 ITA.No.1367/Hyd./2024 income on 31.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs.1,81,12,866/- and claimed Foreign Tax Credit [in short ... No.67 filed by the assessee on 30.09.2023, even though assessee has filed Original Form No.67 on or before the “due date” prescribed for filing revised return u/sec.139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer

Navadisha Montessori Foundation, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncc-19(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3124/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3124/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Navadisha Montessori Foundation, Income Tax Officer, 8F/137, Kg Bellaire, V. Non Corporate Circle -19(1), Velachery Bye Pass Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 042. [Pan: Aabtn-4843-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

assessee, the ld.CIT(A) was not convinced and dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that the assessee should have filed the revised return of income, after the issue of intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act and passed the order dated 29.11.2024 as detailed below: “4.2 Against the said intimation ... acceptable. Every assessee is required to file the correct ITR as per their status, source of income etc. Further, the appellant could have file revised return immediately after came to know the mistakes in filing the return and could opt other remedy as per the provisions

Takhatsinh F Dodia, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Bharuch

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

ITA 1071/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1071/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Takhatsinh F. Dodia, Vs. The Acit, 5, Guru Krupa Society, Opp – Utran Circle – 1, Health Centre, Utran, Surat - 394105 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alnpd6029Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Karan Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/03/2025

Section 139(5)Section 250Section 270ASection 5Section 69A

furnished return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish the revised return at any time before the end of the relevant financial year or before the completion of assessment whichever is earlier. From the details filed ... Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) of the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He submitted that the assessee should have filed a revised return to correct the mistake in the original return of income. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record

Dashrath Kumar Sen, Ajmer vs. ACIT, Nefac -1(2)(2), Delh, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1258/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Zeeba Mohammadi, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80CSection 80T

ACIT 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1 Ground-1 10(10AA) DISALLOWANCES OF EXEMPTION AS WE CLAIMED IN REVISED RETURN, BUT IT IS AN ERROR WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED LATER, The action taken by assessing officer is not correct as all information was in hand ... compared to the Original ITR sought for from the said assessee based on the involvement of the issues viz. "Reduction of Income in Revised return of income (ITR) & further also the claim for Refund " but assigned to the completion thereof u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of I.T. Act 1961 involving

Sri Annamalai Educational Society, Krishnagiri vs. Addl-JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2596/CHNY/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2595 & 2596/Chny/2024 िनधा&रण वष&/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. Sri Annamalai Educational Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society, Exemptions Ward, Soolamalai Medu, Salem. Periyapanamutlu Village, Anchoor Post, Krishnagiri – 635 001. [Pan: Aahts 6428B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ()*थ"/Respondent) Shri Purushothaman, Ca & अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shyam Sundar, Ca & Shri Rajesh Jain, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) )*थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sundar, CA &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

assessee to unjust tax by holding that no return was filed either as a “Regular Assessee” or as an “Association of Person” merely because revised return was not filed under Section 139(4) of the Act, within a time specified under Section 139 of the Act. 23. The last date

Sri Annamalai Educational Society, Krishnagiri vs. Addl-JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2595/CHNY/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2595 & 2596/Chny/2024 िनधा&रण वष&/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. Sri Annamalai Educational Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Society, Exemptions Ward, Soolamalai Medu, Salem. Periyapanamutlu Village, Anchoor Post, Krishnagiri – 635 001. [Pan: Aahts 6428B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ()*थ"/Respondent) Shri Purushothaman, Ca & अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shyam Sundar, Ca & Shri Rajesh Jain, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) )*थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.01.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sundar, CA &For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

assessee to unjust tax by holding that no return was filed either as a “Regular Assessee” or as an “Association of Person” merely because revised return was not filed under Section 139(4) of the Act, within a time specified under Section 139 of the Act. 23. The last date

Madan Kumar Sivinigari, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 2606/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Navneet N Kini, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

claimed FTC of Rs. 4,73,779/- u/s. 90 of the Act read with Article 24 of India Australia tax treaty (“DTAA”) in a revised return of income filed on 31.8.2018. The Assessee had not filed the Form 67 before filing the return of income. On realising the same ... Assessee filed Form 67 in support of claim of foreign tax credit on 18.04.2020. The revised return of income was processed by Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) electronically and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.05.2020 was passed disallowing the claim of FTC. 5. The Assessee filed a rectification

Navbharat Potteries Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above

ITA 2700/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 250

return of Income for A.Y 2016-17 on 14.10.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 25,74,65,700/-. Subsequently, the assessee has filed revised return of income of Rs.26,39,43,100/- on 31.03.2018. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and assessment was completed