← 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

Natco Pharma Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 853/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri A V Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 35Section 41Section 80Section 92CSection 92D(3)

Goetz India Ltd., 284 ITR 323 (SC) held that a deduction can be claimed if return has been filed only by way of filing revised return and that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain claim made otherwise and accordingly, noted that the Assessing Officer has not committed error ... holding that any 34 ITA.No.853/Hyd./2024 fresh claim of deduction can be allowed only by filing a revised return of income. It is the argument of the assessee before us that the assessee paid donation of Rs.5 akhs to Inga Heath Foundation which is not part of Corporate Social

DCIT(It) - 2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Ebay International Ag, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5705/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit(It)-2(2)(1), Ebay International Ag Room No. 606, 6Th Floor, 18Th Floor, Express Towers, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, G Block, Bkc, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabce 4327 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Pranay Gandhi
Section 119(2)(b)Section 154Section 155(14)

assessee's letter dated law the Ld.CIT(A) erred to consider the assessee's letter dated 30.03.2021 wherein the assessee had not filed revised return 30.03.2021 wherein the assessee had not filed revised return 30.03.2021 wherein the assessee had not filed revised return or application or application ... course of action for the Officer was of the view that the appropriate course of action for the assessee was either to file a revised return within the prescribed assessee was either to file a revised return within the pr assessee was either to file a revised return within

The Cathedral Vidya Trust, Mumbai vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4436/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CA and Ms. Nidhi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 11(6)Section 12ASection 270ASection 37(1)Section 80G

income with there being no malafide intention. On the submission made by the assessee, ld. Assessing Officer observed that assessee could have filed the revised return of income before the case was selected for scrutiny. Assessee had merely furnished a revised computation during the course of assessment proceedings for making

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Bridgestone India Private Limited, Pune

Appeal are ALLOWED”

ITA 307/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit 1(1), Bridgestone India Private Indore Limited, Plot No. A-43, बनाम/ Phase Ii, M.I.D.C Chakan, Vs. S.O Chakan, Pune (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabcb2304E Assessee By Shri Kaustubh Fadnis & Manoj Fadnis, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.02.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145ASection 14A

allied products. For AY 2013-14, the assessee filed original return declaring a loss of Rs. 2,00,38,539/- followed by a revised return declaring a total income of Rs. 76,63,220/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) were issued from

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Kota

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 390/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck 7751L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Acit, Circle-2, Kota ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck7751L ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

person— (a) fails to make the return required under sub-section (1) of section 139and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or an updated return under sub-section (8A)] of that section, or (b) fails to comply with ... filed on 31.10.2017 by the assessee company for the A.Y 2017-18. Assessee company has filed its revised return of income on 02.06.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 8,65,87,030/- . The case was selected for scrutiny through Computer assisted selection of cases (CASS) programmed on parameters decided

Kaizen Entreprises Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. ACIT-DCIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 156/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck 7751L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Acit, Circle-2, Kota ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck7751L ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

person— (a) fails to make the return required under sub-section (1) of section 139and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or an updated return under sub-section (8A)] of that section, or (b) fails to comply with ... filed on 31.10.2017 by the assessee company for the A.Y 2017-18. Assessee company has filed its revised return of income on 02.06.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 8,65,87,030/- . The case was selected for scrutiny through Computer assisted selection of cases (CASS) programmed on parameters decided

Jayvantkumar Ramanlal Chokshi, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 917/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 14(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54ASection 54F

valuation report dated 10.10.2020 in which Fair Market Value of the plot as on 01.04.2001 was disclosed at Rs.9,59,000/-. However, in the revised return, the assessee claimed cost of acquisition of Rs.6,00,000/-. The said sale deed indicates that there was purchase of new residential property

Virang Jayendrabhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1941/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 24Section 50C

Domestic and International level. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny with the following reasons:- 1) Reduction in income in revised return and claim of refund 2) Unsecured loan 3) Capital gain/income on sale of property. 3.1 The assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year

Rajendra Shyamkant Shivrame, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2 (1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 936/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 147Section 148Section 270A

appellant in response to the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. We cannot accept the contention of Ld. DR that the revised return was not voluntary therefore the penalty u/s 270A is inevitable. From the perusal of penalty order, it appears that the Assessing Officer himself is not sure

Rajendra Shyamkant Shivrame, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 935/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 147Section 148Section 270A

appellant in response to the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. We cannot accept the contention of Ld. DR that the revised return was not voluntary therefore the penalty u/s 270A is inevitable. From the perusal of penalty order, it appears that the Assessing Officer himself is not sure

Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2132/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

accept the contention of Ld. DR that the appeal has not been filed by the appellant against assessment order wherein penalty was initiated & the revised return was not voluntary therefore the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is inevitable. From the perusal of penalty order, it appears that the Assessing Officer

Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2131/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2131 & 2132/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Santosh Ashokrao Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Barhanpurkar, Flat No.B-8, Deepali Appt., Near Bus Stop Mahatmanagar, Nashik- 422007. Pan: Aawpb8671N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2131/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2016-17.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

accept the contention of Ld. DR that the appeal has not been filed by the appellant against assessment order wherein penalty was initiated & the revised return was not voluntary therefore the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is inevitable. From the perusal of penalty order, it appears that the Assessing Officer

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune vs. Advik Hi-Tech Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1330/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld AO and Ld CIT(A) ought to have considered the second revised return (first time after merger) filed in consequence of Merger order dt 23-04-2020 (certified order was issued by NCLT on 02-03-2021) in view ... examination of the facts, it is observed that the appellant had claimed 80-IA and 80-IC I the original ITR as well as revised returns and the AO didn't taken any adverse view in the assessment order with respect to these deductions. Further, it is seen that there

Advik Hi Tech Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. Dy.Comm.of Income Tax, Circle 8, Pune, Akurdi Pune

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1158/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1158/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1330/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah & Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2023 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld AO and Ld CIT(A) ought to have considered the second revised return (first time after merger) filed in consequence of Merger order dt 23-04-2020 (certified order was issued by NCLT on 02-03-2021) in view ... examination of the facts, it is observed that the appellant had claimed 80-IA and 80-IC I the original ITR as well as revised returns and the AO didn't taken any adverse view in the assessment order with respect to these deductions. Further, it is seen that there

Neelaraj Vinoth, Perambalur vs. ACIT, CC-2, Trichy

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2119/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1982/Chny/2024 & C.O.No. 60/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Neelaraj Vinoth, Income Tax, V. 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Central Circle -2, Perambalur – 621 212, Trichy. Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2119/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelaraj Vinoth, Assistant Commissioner Of 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, V. Income Tax, Perambalur – 621 212, Central Circle -2, Tamilnadu. Trichy. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 234A

declaring a total income of Rs.16,91,070/-. Since the CPC pointed out certain defects in the return of income the assessee filed the revised return of income on 10.12.2018 admitting the same income. Again the revised return of income filed on 29.08.2018 based on certain defects pointed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Neelaraj Vinoth, Perambalur

ITA 1982/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1982/Chny/2024 & C.O.No. 60/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Trichy. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Neelaraj Vinoth, 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Perambalur – 621 212, Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (Respondent/Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2119/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Neelaraj Vinoth, 274-C, Thuraiyur Road, Perambalur – 621 212, Tamilnadu. [Pan: Ajupv-3588-M] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Trichy. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri. P.M. Kathir, Advocate Department By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 234A

declaring a total income of Rs.16,91,070/-. Since the CPC pointed out certain defects in the return of income the assessee filed the revised return of income on 10.12.2018 admitting the same income. Again the revised return of income filed on 29.08.2018 based on certain defects pointed

DCIT, Mum vs. Shelter Developers, Mum

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 3753/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)

Income-tax (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant-assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The claim, therefore ... does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited

DCIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Pavan Kumar B Chandan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2592/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain,ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr.DR)
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

filed his return of income for AY. 2014-15 was filed on 29.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 29,23,137/-. And filed revised return and claimed Exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act, at Rs 2,05,52,685/-. Later on, the case of the assessee was selected

Suvino Televideo, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2099/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(1)Section 72(2)

income for the year under consideration. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 25.07.2013, declaring total income at Rs. Nil. A revised return of income was filed on 04.03.2014 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The return was processed u/s.143(1) accepting returned income. The case

Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Known As Vodafone India Ltd. Which Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Ltd. and Consequently Known As Idea Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT - Circle- 5 (3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 316/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved; Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Date
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 194HSection 32(1)Section 40Section 92C

return of income for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 on 27/11/2014 declaring total loss of INR 474,26,15,918/-. Subsequently, the Appellant filed revised return on 27/02/2017 declaring total loss of INR 474,26,15,918/-. The case of the Appellant was selected for regular scrutiny. During the assessment

revised return — 10,551 case laws | BharatTax