← 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

Abirakham Rajasekar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1410/CHNY/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1408, 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Rohan Raj, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

also relied on the case of A.P. Sahgal vs. ACIT [2004] 89 ITD 580 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that filing of revised return will not absolve the assessee from penal action. The Ld. DR also relied on the case of ACIT vs. Kirit Dahyabhai Patel

Abirakham Rajasekar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1409/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1408, 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Rohan Raj, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

also relied on the case of A.P. Sahgal vs. ACIT [2004] 89 ITD 580 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that filing of revised return will not absolve the assessee from penal action. The Ld. DR also relied on the case of ACIT vs. Kirit Dahyabhai Patel

Abirakham Rajasekar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1408/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1408, 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Rohan Raj, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

also relied on the case of A.P. Sahgal vs. ACIT [2004] 89 ITD 580 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that filing of revised return will not absolve the assessee from penal action. The Ld. DR also relied on the case of ACIT vs. Kirit Dahyabhai Patel

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7 vs. Wgf Financial Services Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside

ITA/184/2022HC Delhi25 Feb 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

For Appellant: Mr. Puneet Rai, Mr. Ashvini Kumar & MrFor Respondent: Ms. Shreya Jain and Mr. Gaurav Tanwar
Section 143(3)

return of income for the AY 2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring a loss of ₹43,61,059/-. However, thereafter, the Assessee filed a revised return on 29.03.2017 declaring a loss of ₹27,43,23,324/-. The Assessee’s return was picked up for scrutiny and the assessment proceedings culminated

Sbs Biotech Unit II, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

Amitabh Bachchan [2016]69 taxmann.com 170[SC] ix) Where no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer in passing assessment order after accepting revised return filed by the assessee, Commissioner was well within his powers under Section 263 to direct fresh assessment Virbhadra singh (HUF) vs PCIT [2017] 86 Taxmann.com

Niral Krupeshbhaipatel, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed subject to the aforesaid aforesaid verification

ITA 962/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah & Shri Rushi Patel, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 40

interest income in the hands of the assessee, since this would amount to double taxation. On receipt of notice dated 03.05.2018, the assessee filed revised return of income on 26.05.2018, including interest income of Rs. 59,08,339/- received from M/s. Neptune Associates and also interest income

ITO., Ward -6(1), Hyderabad vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 755/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

assessment year under question, where the said bank account has not been considered. Further, the assessee has Page 12 of 29 filed revised return on 08.08.2022 and claims that bank account held with Andhra Bank has been considered in the books of accounts. If we go by the original return ... income filed by the assessee on 01.10.2015 and revised return filed by the assessee on 08.08.2022 for the assessment year under consideration, there is huge difference between loss declared by the assessee and from the above, it is undisputedly clear that the books of accounts submitted by the assessee

Sidhi Jewellers, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 751/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

assessment year under question, where the said bank account has not been considered. Further, the assessee has Page 12 of 29 filed revised return on 08.08.2022 and claims that bank account held with Andhra Bank has been considered in the books of accounts. If we go by the original return ... income filed by the assessee on 01.10.2015 and revised return filed by the assessee on 08.08.2022 for the assessment year under consideration, there is huge difference between loss declared by the assessee and from the above, it is undisputedly clear that the books of accounts submitted by the assessee

Sidhi Jewellers, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 750/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

assessment year under question, where the said bank account has not been considered. Further, the assessee has Page 12 of 29 filed revised return on 08.08.2022 and claims that bank account held with Andhra Bank has been considered in the books of accounts. If we go by the original return ... income filed by the assessee on 01.10.2015 and revised return filed by the assessee on 08.08.2022 for the assessment year under consideration, there is huge difference between loss declared by the assessee and from the above, it is undisputedly clear that the books of accounts submitted by the assessee

ITO., Ward -6(1), Hyderabad vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 729/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

assessment year under question, where the said bank account has not been considered. Further, the assessee has Page 12 of 29 filed revised return on 08.08.2022 and claims that bank account held with Andhra Bank has been considered in the books of accounts. If we go by the original return ... income filed by the assessee on 01.10.2015 and revised return filed by the assessee on 08.08.2022 for the assessment year under consideration, there is huge difference between loss declared by the assessee and from the above, it is undisputedly clear that the books of accounts submitted by the assessee

DCIT, Central Cir-2(4), Chennai vs. D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai

In the result, ITA Nos.3340 & 3341 /Chny/2018 stand allowed whereas ITA No

ITA 90/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3340/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3341/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri D.R. Balakrishna Raja Acit बनाम/ 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar, Central Circle-3(3), Vs. Chennai-600 014. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agwpd-2354-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.90/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit Shri D.R.Balakrishna Raja, बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar Vs. Chennai-600 014. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agwpd-2354-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-02-2025

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 68

declaring income of Rs.18.30 Lacs. The return of income was revised on 25-01-2011 admitting income of Rs.10.86 Lacs. The assessee offered same revised return of income in response to notice issued u/s 153A. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made similar addition u/s 68 for Rs.173 Lacs. However

D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-3(3), Chennai

In the result, ITA Nos.3340 & 3341 /Chny/2018 stand allowed whereas ITA No

ITA 3341/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3340/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3341/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri D.R. Balakrishna Raja Acit बनाम/ 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar, Central Circle-3(3), Vs. Chennai-600 014. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agwpd-2354-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.90/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit Shri D.R.Balakrishna Raja, बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar Vs. Chennai-600 014. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agwpd-2354-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-02-2025

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 68

declaring income of Rs.18.30 Lacs. The return of income was revised on 25-01-2011 admitting income of Rs.10.86 Lacs. The assessee offered same revised return of income in response to notice issued u/s 153A. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made similar addition u/s 68 for Rs.173 Lacs. However

D R Balakrishna Raja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Cir-3(3), Chennai

In the result, ITA Nos.3340 & 3341 /Chny/2018 stand allowed whereas ITA No

ITA 3340/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3340/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.3341/Chny/2018 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri D.R. Balakrishna Raja Acit बनाम/ 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar, Central Circle-3(3), Vs. Chennai-600 014. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agwpd-2354-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.90/Chny/2019 (िनधा;रणवष; / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit Shri D.R.Balakrishna Raja, बनाम/ Central Circle-2(4), 9/16, Venkatesan Street, T.Nagar Vs. Chennai-600 014. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Agwpd-2354-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri A. Sasikumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25-02-2025

For Appellant: Shri K.G. Raghunath (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 68

declaring income of Rs.18.30 Lacs. The return of income was revised on 25-01-2011 admitting income of Rs.10.86 Lacs. The assessee offered same revised return of income in response to notice issued u/s 153A. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made similar addition u/s 68 for Rs.173 Lacs. However

Ronak Metal Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO WD.23(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/MUM/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

appeal has been filed immediately. Under these circumstances, delay of 40 days is condoned. 4. The brief facts are that assessee has filed its revised return of income at Rs.4,75,660/- within the prescribed time limit whch was accepted. However, subsequently, the case was reopened by issuance of notice

Mulund Vikas Sahakari Pathpadi Limited, Mulund West vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(6), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan

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

ITA 5207/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra N. Naik, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R Makwana, CIT DR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69ASection 80PSection 81

bank account, including cash deposits. Ld. Assessing Officer also noted that assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.5,55,110/- u/s. 80P, in its revised return. Details were called for in this respect also, to justify the claim so made. In the course of assessment, assessee failed to comply with

Gabriel India Limited, Pune, Maharashtra vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 5(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3998/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 28

assessee e-filed return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 30.09.2011, declaring total income of Rs. 34,95,92,462/-. Subsequently assessee filed revised return of income, declaring total income of Rs. 36,07,19,389/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices

Fancy Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Mumbai

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

ITA 3958/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

assessee has duly responded to the same, but it is the submission of revenue that the assessee should have filed a revised return of income. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee is entitled for exemption of dividend income. The object of assessment

Bhavya Construction Co., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the assessee's appeals ITA No

ITA 4390/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2007-08
Section 250Section 80I

contractors. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2006- 07 on 31.10.2006, declaring total income at Rs.28,69,487/-. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return of income on 22.10.2007, declaring total income at Rs. Nil after claiming deduction of Rs.28,69,487/- u/s.80IB(10) of the Act in respect

ACIT 6(3), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4385/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

Year 2006-07, the Assessee filed return of income on 27/11/2006 declaring total income of INR.10,62,16,40,458/-. The Assessee filed as revised return on 20/03/2008 declaring total income of INR 10,60,25,15,698/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for regular scrutiny and notice

Grasim Industries Ltd ( Corporate Finance Division), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 3762/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

Year 2006-07, the Assessee filed return of income on 27/11/2006 declaring total income of INR.10,62,16,40,458/-. The Assessee filed as revised return on 20/03/2008 declaring total income of INR 10,60,25,15,698/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for regular scrutiny and notice