“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

Cosmo Speciality Chemicals Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Cr Building, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2766/DEL/2024[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2024AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2766/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2022-23) Cosmo Specialty Chemicals P. Ltd., 1St Floor, Uppals Plaza, M-6 District Centre, Jasola, Delhi 110025 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aaicc-6706-G बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), C.R Building ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri Shrey Jain, Advocates "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 10/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 14.05.2024, For Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised In Appeal By The Assessee In Denial Of Benefit Of New Tax Regime U/S. 115Bab Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act').

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)

denied merely on the ground that Form 10ID was not filed within due date of Section 139(1) but was filed on 19.05.2021 with revised return u/s. 139(5) within the permissible time. However, I note that facts submitted in this case need to be verified from the factual details

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. National E Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

under Explanation 1 to sub-section (2) of section 115JB of the Act. Since the assessee has not made the claim by filing the revised return of income, the Assessing Officer did not entertain the claim of the assessee by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... grant from Government which was clubbed and included under the head other income in Schedule 14 forming part of the financial statement. In the revised return, the assessee excluded excise duty exempt in the computation of book profit under section 115JB of the Act by relying on the decision

Economic Explosives Limited, Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 177/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mani JainFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Om Prakash Agrawal HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaiupr, Jaipur

ITA 967/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sarwan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

directed Assessing Officer that while computing income of assessee—Held, Assessing Officer recorded that assessee filed return in his return of income and revised return of income, as "It was also noted by undersigned that assessee had returned income of Rs.3,56,170/- in his return of income ... revised return of income, assessee returned income of Rs.5,00,660—Thus, during re- assessment, Assessing Officer was very well aware i.e., return was filed by assessee—AO recorded that on verification of details in ITD, it was seen that assessee has not filed return and assessee has not complied

Gemological Institute of America Inc., California vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Circle-2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Institute Of V/S. Acit (International बनाम America Inc. Taxation)-2(3)(2), Mumbai 5345, The Robert Mouawad 17Th Floor, Air India Campus, Armada Drive, Building, Nariman Point, Carlsbad, California Mumbai-400021 Zip-092008 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7962K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistryFor Respondent: Smt. Shaileja Rai

Section 147Section 148

diamond dossiers. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 30/11/2017 declaring total income of Rs.597,75,36,450/-. Later a revised return was filed on 30/11/2018 declaring total income at Rs.348,35,96,480/-. The assessee is one of the companies of GIA Page

Sky Gem, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistryFor Respondent: Smt. Shaileja Rai

Section 147Section 148

Sri Gokul Profits, Rajahmundry vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Rajahmundry

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

ITA 297/VIZ/2024[2012-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 Sept 2024AY 2012-23

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 297/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sri Gokul Profits V. Asst. Cit – Circle – 2 D.No. 14-193/1, Sri Krishna Nilayam Income Tax Office, Aayakar Bhavan Veerabhadrapuram Rtc Complex Road, Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh Rajahmundry – 533105 Andhra Pradesh [Pan : Abrfs3990B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69

case of the assessee is reopened by issuing a notice under section 148 of the Act. In response to the notice, assessee filed revised return of income admitting the original return of income. Subsequently, statutory notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee

Shri Rishabh Devji Kesarimaljijain Sh Mp Dt S Sangh, Ratlam vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal Addljcit(A)11 Mumbai, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 118/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Indore06 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2019-20 Shri Rishabh Devji Cpc Bengaluru/ Kesarimalji Jain Sh Mp Dt Cit(A)/Addl. Jcit-(A)-11, S. Sangh, Mumbai बनाम/ Bajaj Khana, Vs. Ratlam

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 2(45)Section 4

expenses incurred for earning income in accordance with provisions of Act. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is also ready to file a revised return before AO, if the AO so desires. Ld. DR for revenue submitted that he has no objection if the case is remanded back

M/S. Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 4 (1), Chennai

ITA 339/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan-For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

income, after claiming deduction u/s.10AA of the Act, amounting to Rs.13,61,22,751/-. Thereafter, the assessee is noted to have filed the revised return on 17.04.2013 showing total income at Rs.NIL but claiming deduction u/s.80-IAB of the Act, amounting to Rs.11,08,19,915/-. The case of the assessee

M/S. Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 4 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2012-13, 2013-14

ITA 338/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.870/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.338 & 339/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.Raghavan-For Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

Mahindra Residential Developers Ltd., Chengalput vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 870/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80

Gemological Institute of America, Inc., United States of America vs. ACIT (Int Tax Circle) - 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4433/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrigemological Institute Of V/S. Acit (International बनाम America, Inc. Taxation) Circle 5345, The Rober Mouawad 2(3)(2)Mumbai Camplus, Armada Drive, 17Th Floor, Air India Carlsbad, California Zip – Building, Nariman Point, 092008 Mumbai-400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcg7962K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Smt. Shaileja Rai

Section 143(3)

Coforge Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1247/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Alok Vasant, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2Section 234CSection 250Section 28Section 36(1)(va)

assessee is a listed company and is in the business of offering global IT solutions. The assessee filed its revised return of income on July 06, 2020, declaring a total income of Rs.245,49,35,430 and claimed a refund of Rs.44,12,360/-. 4. A notice cum intimation dated

Astt. Commisioner of Income Tax, Lucknow vs. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 66/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neil Jain, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 80Section 80I

income of Rs.61,21,73,600/-, which included an amount of Rs.1,74,25,549/- surrendered by the assessee. Later on, the assessee filed revised return of income showing a total income of Rs.56,70,62,680/-, which included an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as surrendered income on account ... facts relating to the claim of deduction under section 80IA of the Act are that the assessee filed its revised return of income on 19.3.2016 declaring total income of Rs.61,24,23,603/- and claimed deduction of Rs.4,68,60,927/- under Chapter VI-A of the Act. The assessee

Ram Vinod Agrawal, Dhule vs. CIT, Central Circle 1 Dhule, Dhule

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

ITA 1435/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shir Rohit TapadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

shares of M/s Parikh Herbals Ltd./Safal Herbs Ltd. for Rs.20,52,148/-. The Assessing Officer did not accept the income shown in the revised return, instead added the complete sale of shares amounting to Rs.20,52,148/- and assessed the total income at Rs.29,40,329/- by assessment order ... were held as stock on 31.03.2013. In the above transaction, the assessee has disclosed short term capital gains of Rs.3,11,371/- in the revised return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. This short term capital gain of Rs.3,11,371/- was shown in addition

Satyanarayanareddy Modugu, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 676/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.676/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Satyanarayanareddy Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Modugu Circle 5(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adipm9455E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Rajeswara Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 05/09/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Rajeswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri S.P.G. Mudaliar, DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 234F

1/1/2021 declaring total income of Rs.23,23,980/-. The return of income has been subsequently revised by filing revised return of income on 24.3.2021 declaring total income of Rs.12,64,060/-. The return of income filed by the assessee has been processed ... late fee of Rs.10,000/- u/s 234F of the I.T. Act, 1961. Admittedly, the assessee has filed original return of income on 10.01.2021 and revised return of income on 24.3.2021 and both the returns are within the due date provided under the law for filing of return of income. Further

The Sirur Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pune vs. ACIT, Exemtion Circle, Pune

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

ITA 609/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

M/S. Humara India Credit Cooperative Society Limited., Kolkata vs. NFAC, Delhi.

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

ITA 843/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.843/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Humara India Credit Co-Operative ………. Appellant Society Ltd. (Pan: Aaaah8186M) Vs. Assessing Officer, ………… Respondent National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Appearances By: Shri Shri Praveen Kumar Bansal, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri Nicholash Murmu, Addl. Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 22.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 04.09.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad:

Section 143(3)Section 250

said return vide return dt.20/02/2019 in which the loss was returned at Rs.4,43, 52,86, 663/ - C P-3. of P.B). Reasons for revised return when asked were given (Page 1 & 2 of P.B). The A.O. while accepted the revised return as noted at Page 3, para ... appreciate from the facts as narrated in the preceding paragraph that assessing officer although accepted the loss as declared by the assessee in the revised return at Rs.443, 52, 86, 663/- (Page 3 of revised computation of paper book read with page 3 of the assessment order) but while drawing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 819/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Idfc Limited, 4Th Floor, Capitale Tower, No. 555, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Anna Salai, Thiru Vi Ka Kudiyiruppu, Chennai 600 034. Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaaci2663N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Ved, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated Both Dated 21.09.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Since The Issue Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear All These Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

that the assessee filed his original return of income on 30.11.2016 declaring total income of ₹.867,56,06,190/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed its revised return of income on 31.03.2017 on the same amount, which was declared in the original return of income. The assessment was completed determining the income ... account of ESOP expenses. 23. We note that the assessee did not claim ESOP expenses in the original return of income as well as revised return of income. The said claim was made before the Assessing Officer, which was rejected in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1(1), Nungambakkam vs. Idfc Limited, Teynampet

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 818/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V. Nandakumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Ved, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)