“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

Nitin Prakash Kochar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 11(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1253/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore, Judicialmember आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1253/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2020-21 Dr.Nitin Prakash Kochar, Vs The Income Tax Officer, 302, Shrikrishnashrya Ward-1(1), Pune. Siociety, Kasba Peth, Pune – 411011. Pan: Acapk0236C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar (Power Of Attorney On Record) Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 31.03.2024 For The A.Y.2020-21. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Additions Of Rs.9,12,089 Made By The A.O. By Taxing The Total Income Of Rs.42,58,230 Declared In Nitin Prakash Kochar [A]

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 250

Cardiac Surgeon filed Original Return of Income electronically on 05.12.2020 showing 2 Nitin Prakash Kochar [A] total income of Rs.42,58,230/-. The assessee revised return of income on 15.12.2020 to Rs.33,46,140/-. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny, accordingly, the Assessing Officer(AO) issued various notices. Assessee ... filed submission before the Assessing Officer. The AO asked assessee to explain the reasons for reduction of income in the revised return of income. The assessee submitted that inadvertently Rs.1,89,909/- which was an amount of Refund of Deposit from Sigma Hospital was shown as Professional Receipt. Similarly, certain

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Sh. Naval Kishore, Kota

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 456/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Section 139Section 143Section 153A

such claim in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act nor in regular assessment proceedings by way of filing any revised return therefore returns filed in response to notica under Section 153A of the Act are not substitute of revised return for making claim of such

Iifl Samasta Finance Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1054/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 40Section 43

various Hon'ble High Courts when the said amendment was not effective (i.e at the time of filing of return/ timeline of filing revised return). 6) The Ld CIT(A) erred in law and facts by not appreciating the bonafide disclosure of the material facts by the Appellant wherein ... submitted the letter enclosing rectified computation before completion of the assessment, withdrawing the claim made towards deduction of Income tax Cess, as the revised return could not be filed due to impossibility of performance. 7) The Ld CIT(A) erred in law and facts by upholding the rejection of immunity

Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Limited, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri. D. M. RindaniFor Respondent: Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 44ASection 80Section 801A(4)

However, in the facts of the aforesaid case, the taxpayer filed the declaration as required under section 10B(8) alongwith the revised return of income, i.e. after the due date of filing of the original return under section 139(1) of the Act. Admittedly in the present case, the audit

International Hospital Limited vs. DCIT Circle 12 (2)

ITA/116/2023HC Delhi26 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

duly intimated to the Assessing Officer on 29 December 2017. The petitioner is also stated to have submitted merged financial statements along with a revised Return of Income on 29 March 2019. of RSL had submitted its No Objection to the proposed Scheme before the NCLT on 28 September ... MIPL. 3. The original return of income was not revised even though the assessment proceedings were pending. The last date for filing the revised returns was March 31, 2008, after the amalgamation order. 4. A search and seizure proceeding was conducted in respect of the Mahagun group, including the MRPL

Sarada Devi Maddi, Warangal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Warangal

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

ITA 538/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Sarada Devi Maddi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Warangal. Warangal. Pan : Abypm0616M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B. Srinivasa Rao, C.A. (Virtual Hearing) Revenue By: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing: 25.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri B. Srinivasa Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Rani, Sr. A.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

that the assessee is an individual, filed her original return of income on 31.03.2018 admitting total income of Rs.16,97,870/- and also filed revised return of income on 06.06.2019 admitting total income of Rs.19,79,400/-. The return of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly

M/S Rana & Joshi Buildtech P Ltd, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271E

Singh (HUF)Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Himachal Pradesh): Where no inquiry was conducted by Assessing officer in passing assessment order after accepting revised return filed by assessce, Commissioner was well within his power under section 263 to direct fresh assessment; In view of the detailed reasons given

Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT, Circle1(1), Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 210/CTK/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

granted registration to the assessee u/s.12A of the Act w.e.f. 01.04.2002. After receiving the order of granting exemption w.e.f 01.04.2002, the assessee filed revised returns for all the three years claiming exemption u/s.11 of the Act. The said revised returns were not admitted by the AO as they were barred ... decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide its order dated 12.07.2022, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that the revised return should be admitted as the period of delay is beyond the 3 ITA Nos.208-210/CTK/2024 control of the assessee and should be ignored. Consequent upon

Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/CTK/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

Paradip Port Authority, Jagatsinghpur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 208/CTK/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Sept 2024AY 2003-04

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 260Section 263

Ishoo Narang, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 319/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.319/Hyd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan: Acspn1664K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No.2/Hyd/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.319/Hyd/2022) A.Y 2015-16 Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan: Acspn1664K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT (DR)

Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)

filed its return of income for the A.Y 2015-16 on 5.9.2015 admitting income of Rs.1,04,84,170/-. The assessee has filed revised return on 30.09.2015 admitting income of Rs.91,36,620/-. The case was selected for scrutiny to verify large difference in the opening stock of current year

Omprakash Maghraj, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 97/VIZ/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Through Hybrid Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.97/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2014-15) Omprakash Maghraj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Vijayawada. Pan: Acapm1683R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri Suresh Kumar Jain, Ar ""ाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri Suresh Kumar Jain, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

NFAC 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC considered the submissions made by the assessee and observed that the assessee prepared a revised return of income for the AY 2014-15 by admitting the profit of Rs. 4,19,000/- being 5% of the unrecorded sales

M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd. (Formerly M.S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.), Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 277/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.276 & 277/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Orchid Pharma Ltd. [Formerly Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of M.S. Orchid Chemicals & Income Tax, Pharmaceuticals Ltd.] 313, Orchid Central Circle 1(1), Towers, Valluvarkottam High Road, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaco0402B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. & Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Order Both Dated 28.02.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 238Section 271(1)(c)Section 30(2)Section 31(1)Section 35Section 36Section 37

from the record are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring total income of ₹.29,51,39,990/- and a revised return of income was filed on 12.03.2014 declaring a loss of ₹.266,04,86,669/-. The scrutiny assessment was completed by making addition

M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd. (Formerly M.S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.), Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 276/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 238Section 271(1)(c)Section 30(2)Section 31(1)Section 35Section 36Section 37

Killick Nixon Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4016/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : Shri.K.Gopal & Ms Neha Paranjpe.AR Shr

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 144Section 271Section 41(1)Section 69Section 69A

disclosing a total income of Rs. Nil after set off of brought forward losses. Whereas the assessee has filed revised return of income on 12.10.2018 disclosing a total income of Rs. Nil and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected

Anju Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3158/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalanju Chirania, Vs. Ito, Ward –4(1)(3), 301, Sona Chambers, Room No. 637, 507/509, Jss Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chira Bazar, Marine Lines, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Afcpc9073Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

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

Principal Commissioner vs. M/S Maxim Ndia Integrated Circuit Design Pvt Ltd

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

ITA/48/2021HC Karnataka24 Sept 2024

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Section 10ASection 260Section 36(1)(iii)

verification ignoring the fact that the assessee had not claimed such deduction under section 10A in original return of income and also no revised return was filed and when position of law being amply clear in this regard as laid down in the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment delivered

The Mig Co-Operative Housing Society (Bandra East) Group IV Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl/JCIT (A)-4, Mumbai

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

ITA 1215/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Girish Agrawal, Am The Mig Co-Operative Housing Society Addl/Jcit(A)-4 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 48/1 (Bandra East) Group Iv Limited D/69/675 Mig Colony, Kalanagr 48/2, Beratennagrahara Bengur, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Hosur Road, Uttarahalli Hubli, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 100

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80P(2)(d)

entitled to accept the claim for deduction which was not claimed at the time of filing of the return otherwise than by filing revised return of income. The ld. CIT(A) has also denied the claim of the assessee on the merits stating that the interest received from Co-operative

Income Tax Officer - 11(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tainwala Holdings Private Limited, Andheri East Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1066/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer-11(3)(1), Tainwala Holdings Private Mumbai Limited Vs 403, Ackruti Star, Central Road, Midc, Andheri East, Mumbai- 400093. Pan: Aaact 1542 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shreyash Shan, Advocate a/w Shri Kunal ShahFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Addl. CIT/ Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 35ASection 80G

return was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 13.07.2018. The assessee also filed revised return of income on 30.03.2018 by declaring income at Rs. 21,02,320/-. During the course of assessment on perusal of the revised return of income

Zula Merchandisc Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 553/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 68

adhere the principles of natural justice went to the root of the matter. Also, the CBDT circular that permitted to the Assessee to file revised returns if he omitted to make a claim was also not noticed by the AO.” Therefore the Assessing Officer was bound to supply those statements