← 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

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 962/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.C Kincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A Sreenivasa Rao, CIT (DR)
Section 1Section 10ASection 2Section 234BSection 250Section 32A

year 2007-08 had not claimed any exemption under Section 10B of the Act. This deduction was claimed for the first time in the revised return. On being denied this claim, constitutional vires of Sub- section 5 to Section 80A, as inserted by Finance Act, 2009 and 4th proviso

Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Commissioner of India, Na

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

ITA 3776/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi a/w Shri Priyank
Section 143(3)Section 43B

Finance Ltd. predecessor which amounts to double disallowance. The reason as stated by the CIT(A) is that the assessee should have filed the revised return of income correcting the error and that the claim cannot be made by filing a letter before the AO. Accordingly ... denied the claim of the assessee for the reason that the assessee has not filed a revised return of income and has made the claim through a letter before the AO. In this regard it is relevant to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

Aptiv Connection Systems India Private Limited, Kochi, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1) Kochi, Kochi, Kerala

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

ITA 641/COCH/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 154

dismiss the same as not pressed. 16. The last substantive ground of appeal of the assessee is that the assessee has filed the revised return of income which has not been considered by the AO during the assessment proceedings. As such, the AO has framed the assessment order on original ... also dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee has not filed any evidence of having filed revised return of income. 16.1 However, at the time of hearing before us, the ld. AR requested to restore the issue to the file

Aptiv Connection Systems India Private Limited, Kochi, Kerala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Kochi, Ernakulam

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

ITA 640/COCH/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Nov 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Girly Albert, Sr. DR
Section 10ASection 154

dismiss the same as not pressed. 16. The last substantive ground of appeal of the assessee is that the assessee has filed the revised return of income which has not been considered by the AO during the assessment proceedings. As such, the AO has framed the assessment order on original ... also dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee has not filed any evidence of having filed revised return of income. 16.1 However, at the time of hearing before us, the ld. AR requested to restore the issue to the file

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 885/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

towards unaccounted cash receipts from the sale of spent solvents / scrap in all four companies for the relevant assessment years and also filed a revised return in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act and paid taxes on the said unaccounted income. Therefore, the claim of the assessee

Msn Pharmachem Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21 are partly allowed

ITA 884/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

towards unaccounted cash receipts from the sale of spent solvents / scrap in all four companies for the relevant assessment years and also filed a revised return in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act and paid taxes on the said unaccounted income. Therefore, the claim of the assessee

ACIT, Delhi vs. M/S. Sahara Prime City Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 1301/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2024AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shaily Gupta
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37

filed its original return of income for AY 2010-11 on 04.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.40,59,90,641/-. The assessee thereafter filed revised return of income on 03.02.2012 declaring total income of Rs.41,56,39,018/-. The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was made vide order ... reopened and notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 01.04.2014. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed revised return on 25.01.2014 declaring gross total income of Rs.41,56,39,018/-. 4 6. The reasons recorded for reopening as provided to the assessee

Jmc-Mske(Jv), Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 830/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Us & That These Four

For Appellant: S/Sh. D.M. Rindani and Sh. Chintan Shah, RRsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income on 05.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.2,18,75,320/-. Thereafter, revised return of income was filed by the assessee on 06.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.6,59,450/-. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue

Jmc-Mske(Jv), Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 829/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Us & That These Four

For Appellant: S/Sh. D.M. Rindani and Sh. Chintan Shah, RRsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income on 05.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.2,18,75,320/-. Thereafter, revised return of income was filed by the assessee on 06.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.6,59,450/-. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue

Bgsctpl- Mskel (Jv), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 828/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Us & That These Four

For Appellant: S/Sh. D.M. Rindani and Sh. Chintan Shah, RRsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income on 05.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.2,18,75,320/-. Thereafter, revised return of income was filed by the assessee on 06.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.6,59,450/-. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue

Bgsctpl- Mskel Consortium, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2498/AHD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Us & That These Four

For Appellant: S/Sh. D.M. Rindani and Sh. Chintan Shah, RRsFor Respondent: Sh. Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income on 05.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.2,18,75,320/-. Thereafter, revised return of income was filed by the assessee on 06.10.2010 declaring income of Rs.6,59,450/-. The case of the assessee was selected by Revenue

Shree Shiv Sahyadri Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(3) Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1788/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1788/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shree Shiv Sahyadri Nagari V The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Pathanstha S Ward-7(3), Pune. Maryadit, Sai Park Road, Dighi, Pune – 411015. Pan: Aaeas1417N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Deepak Sasar – Ar Revenue By Smt. Shabana Parveen – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.06.2024 For A.Y.2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Wrongly Confirmed The Disallowance Of Deduction Of Rs.15,60,115/- Claimed By The Appellant U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Alternatively, The Interest Income Earned By The Appellant From The Investments In A Co-Operative Bank Is Also Eligible For Deduction Under Section 80P(2)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant Crave Leave To Add, Delete, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw All Or Any One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(1)(v)Section 2Section 250Section 80ISection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file revised return making such claim, its claim for deduction under section 80-IA is maintainable. Therefore, where assessee had filed return under 5 section ... entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IA even if such claim was not made in original return but subsequently in revised return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com

Chainroop Surajmal Dugar, Mumbai vs. Ward 24(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3004/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading in shares/investment and he was also a partner in various partnership firms. In the revised return assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.79,39,438/- on interest paid to various partnership firms. The ld. AO after noting down income earned

DCIT-17(1), Mumbai, Room No., Kautilya Bhawan vs. Chandraprakash Mukutbihari Gupta, Ground Floor, Mohammed Bldg

ITA 2130/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 54Section 54ESection 54F

u/s.54F of the Act without appreciating that the assessee neither claimed the said deduction in original return of income filed nor has filed any revised return of income claiming the deduction u/s.54 of the Act. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 824 ITR 323 (SC) held that the assessee could make claim of deduction by filing a revised return and the assessing officer cannot allow the deduction claimed by way of a letter from the assessee?. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara, Race Course Vadodara vs. Anilbhai Champaklal Shah, Harni Road

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1363/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 147Section 69Section 69A

income for A.Y. 2017-18 was filed by the assessee on 27.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,19,590/-. Thereafter, the assessee had filed revised return on 07.11.2017 declaring income of Rs.4,32,370/-. The AO had received an information that the assessee had ITA No. 1363/Ahd/2024 (ITO vs. Anilbhai

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1051/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

unaccounted purchases & unaccounted sales and also offered gross profit on unaccounted sales as income for the AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18 and filed revised return and also paid taxes. The AO, once again, made addition towards unaccounted purchases on the ground that source was not explained

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1050/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

unaccounted purchases & unaccounted sales and also offered gross profit on unaccounted sales as income for the AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18 and filed revised return and also paid taxes. The AO, once again, made addition towards unaccounted purchases on the ground that source was not explained

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1049/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

unaccounted purchases & unaccounted sales and also offered gross profit on unaccounted sales as income for the AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18 and filed revised return and also paid taxes. The AO, once again, made addition towards unaccounted purchases on the ground that source was not explained

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1048/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

unaccounted purchases & unaccounted sales and also offered gross profit on unaccounted sales as income for the AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18 and filed revised return and also paid taxes. The AO, once again, made addition towards unaccounted purchases on the ground that source was not explained

Gold Ak, Tenkasi vs. ITO 3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly- allowed for statistical purposes as indicated against each of the issues

ITA 1047/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Smt. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

unaccounted purchases & unaccounted sales and also offered gross profit on unaccounted sales as income for the AYs 2015-16 to 2017-18 and filed revised return and also paid taxes. The AO, once again, made addition towards unaccounted purchases on the ground that source was not explained