“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

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

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

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

Flsmidth Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT- 1, Chennai

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

ITA 1636/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1636/Chny/2024 िनधा:रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Flsmidth Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of No.34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam Vs. Income Tax-1, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Chennai. Chennai – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf 4997N]

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

return of income for A.Y 2014-15 on 30.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 35,34,10,370/- which was further revised by filing revised return on 31.03.2016 at Rs.57,25,24,130/-. The A.O has passed order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(4) of the Act on 28.02.2018 assessing

Preeti Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 28(2)(4), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 4245/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 68

long 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 additions

Income Tax Officer 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. V Real Estate India Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1573/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh CheddaFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Sr. AR

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

assessee was processed vide intimation dated 15.01.2012 issued under section 143(1) of the Act accepting the returned loss. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 29.09.2012, wherein the loss was reduced to Rs. (-) 21,11,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under

Hitesh Navinchandra Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 2280/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap (Sr. DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 24Section 80CSection 80D

under: 3. The assessee filed its return of income on 26/10/2018 declaring the total income at Rs.20,47,560/-. Subsequently on 22/11/2018 a revised return was filed declaring the total income Hitesh Navinchandra Mehta.; A. Y.2018-09 at Rs.19,57,560/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

Indus Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd and As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Indus Tower Ltd), Gurugram, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

assessee revised its financial statements to give effect to the Scheme approved by the Hon‟ble High Court and basis the same, filed a revised return of income on 29.11.2013 after giving due effect to the aforesaid merger, reporting a loss of (Rs.793,20,41,502/-) under normal provisions ... book profit of Rs.4,69,90,41,333/- as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The aforesaid revised return of income was treated as invalid and non-est by the learned AO basis the reasoning that such return of income was filed beyond the time limit

ACIT, Circle 10, New Delhi vs. Indus Tower Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1962/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

Amjay Medimax India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, subject to the levy of costs as specified above

ITA 731/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.731/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Amjay Medimax India The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Circle-1(1)(1) V/S. 4Th Floor, Medi Max House Ahmedabad - 380 015 Opp.Karnavati Hospital Ellisbridge Ahmedabad – 380 006 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 8241 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23/02/2024, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) Arose Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Amjay Medimax India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 68

Case: 2. The assessee filed its original return of income on 31/10/2017, declaring total income of Rs.60,40,300/- and subsequently, filed a revised return on 05/06/2018, declaring the same income. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued. After

Elite Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 722/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

total income of Rs. 94,38,700/- under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act and later filed a revised return on 01- 10-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 66,76,949/- and with total tax payable of Rs. 16,24,560/-. The return was processed

Elite Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 721/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

Elite Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 720/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

Elite Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 719/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

Elite Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 718/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

Elite Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 717/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

Elite Infraprojects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 716/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Ms. C.S.Sree Lekha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 279(1)

The Tea Trade Association of Cochin, Kochi vs. The DCIT Exemption, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 454/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Tea Trade Association Of Cochin Tea Trade Centre, Ig Road Willingdon Island, Kochi 682003 [Pan: Aaact8756B] .......... Appellant Vs. Dcit (Exemption) C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Kochi 682018 .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Thomson Thomas, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Thomson Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 25

intends to seek a larger relief than claimed in the return of income, the only recourse available to the assessee is to file a revised return of income as stipulated under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion I do not find any merit

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Firefly Market Research India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4184/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ajit JainFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40a

income on 30/11/2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 5,06,93,660 under normal provisions of the Act. Later the assessee filed the revised return of income on 03/10/2016 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,60,18,293. It is evident from the record that the return filed

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3306/MUM/2024[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &For Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)Section 250

Division Bench of Gujarat High Court had occasion to consider a similar issue. The assessee had made a belated claim during assessment of filing revised return. According to the Revenue, this would entitle the assessee for claim of interest to the extent of delay. Provisions of sub-rule

Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3305/MUM/2024[1999-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 1999-20

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &For Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR.)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)Section 250

Aawagaman Mercantile LLP, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3235/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailaawagaman Mercantile Llp, 204, Anand Estate, Arthur Road 189, Mumbai, Jacob Circle S.O. Mumbai - 400011 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra Pan: Abbfa0328F V/S Ito, Ward – 1(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata ……………. Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata. Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR

Section 111ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270Section 270A

assessee filed its return of income on 21/07/2018, declaring a total income of INR 3,09,21,920. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 26/02/2019 declaring the same income. The return filed by the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS with the issue