made. Admittedly, it was so. On 7th Jan., 1991, a revised return (second revised return), claiming carry forward of earlier years' loss and unabsorbed ... month in which the revised return is furnished, whichever is later. The second revised return was filed on 7th Jan., 1991. Therefore, notice could have
revised return filed by the assessee on April 7, 1976. The revised return could not be said to be a valid one because the marginal ... assessment without taking notice of a revised return, assuming that the revised return is a valid one, that does not affect the Assessing Officer
made. Admittedly, it was so. On 7-1-1991, a revised return (second revised return), claiming carry-forward of earlier years loss and unabsorbed depreciation ... month in which the revised return is furnished, whichever is latter. The second revised return was filed on 7-1-1991. Therefore, notice could have been
appeal. The Tribunal held that the declaration filed with the revised return was valid and that the registration should have been allowed to it. Then ... term "return of income" includes "revised return".
9. If a declaration is furnished along with the return of income under Section
others as follows:-
(i) that the revised return filed on 31st March 1994 claiming the loss
was valid and was not affected by the provisions ... even when the Tribunal had found the revised return of loss to
be valid in view of assessee having been exempted from the application
original return Under Section 139(5) nor could the revised return be permitted to be filed Under Section 139(4) . If a revised return ... assessee filed a revised return declaring an income of Rs. 4,295. The ITO made an assessment treating the revised return filed on March
quashing the order u/s 263 and treating the revised
return as valid, even though filed beyond the prescribed time and after
completion of assessment
March 6, 1970, was not a valid one. It could not be treated as a revised return, because it had not been filed ... report before the completion of the assessment with or without a revised return for the purpose of curing the defect in the original return filed
earlier return had been withdrawn. Where a revised return was filed under Section 139(5) , both the original return and the revised return ... penalty, the original return was deemed to be a valid return, but for the purposes of assessment the revised return had to be taken into
accepted
the claim of business income which was made in revised return.
However, he has denied the claim of interest expenditure with
the plea that ... various facts and statements
that revised return was filed by the appellant on 30/11/2000
which was a valid return in view of section
