← 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

Meridian Construction India Limited, Patna vs. ACIT Circle-2, Patna

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 261/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69CSection 70

person- (a)fails to make the return required [under sub- section (1) of section 139 and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub- section (5) of that section, or] (b)fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under

Meridian Construction India Limited, Patna Bihar vs. ACIT Circle-2 Patna, Patna

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 260/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69CSection 70

person- (a)fails to make the return required [under sub- section (1) of section 139 and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub- section (5) of that section, or] (b)fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under

Meridian Construction India Limited, Patna, Bihar vs. ACIT Circle-2 Patna, Patna

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 259/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69CSection 70

person- (a)fails to make the return required [under sub- section (1) of section 139 and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub- section (5) of that section, or] (b)fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under

Adhaan Solution Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT-Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 922/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Bhavna Udernani & Shri Rahul Y OzaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

assessee filed return of income for AY 2017-18 on 30.10.2017, declaring a total income of Rs. 13,59,700/-. Thereafter the assessee filed revised return of income on 08.08.2018, declaring a total income of Rs. 14,35,120/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and notices

The ACIT., Patan Circle, Patan vs. M/S. Ranjit Buildcon Ltd., Unjha

ITA 1673/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

after claiming deduction of Rs.6,38,87,090/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed first revised return of income on 10.01.2009 declaring total income at Rs.11,01,90,210/-. Thereafter, the assessee company again filed the second revised return of income ... dismissed. 17. Now coming to ITA No.1673/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee filed return of income on 17.10.2016 and revised return on 28.10.2017 thereby declaring net income of Rs.2,73,96,750/- after claiming deduction of Rs.29,80,28,049/- under Section 80IA

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Patan Circle, Patan vs. M/S. Ranjit Buildcon Ltd., Unjha

ITA 1620/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

after claiming deduction of Rs.6,38,87,090/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed first revised return of income on 10.01.2009 declaring total income at Rs.11,01,90,210/-. Thereafter, the assessee company again filed the second revised return of income ... dismissed. 17. Now coming to ITA No.1673/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee filed return of income on 17.10.2016 and revised return on 28.10.2017 thereby declaring net income of Rs.2,73,96,750/- after claiming deduction of Rs.29,80,28,049/- under Section 80IA

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Patan Circle, Patan vs. M/S. Ranjit Buildcon Ltd., Unjha

ITA 1230/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

after claiming deduction of Rs.6,38,87,090/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed first revised return of income on 10.01.2009 declaring total income at Rs.11,01,90,210/-. Thereafter, the assessee company again filed the second revised return of income ... dismissed. 17. Now coming to ITA No.1673/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee filed return of income on 17.10.2016 and revised return on 28.10.2017 thereby declaring net income of Rs.2,73,96,750/- after claiming deduction of Rs.29,80,28,049/- under Section 80IA

The DCIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ranjit Buildcon Ltd., Unjha

ITA 3121/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

after claiming deduction of Rs.6,38,87,090/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed first revised return of income on 10.01.2009 declaring total income at Rs.11,01,90,210/-. Thereafter, the assessee company again filed the second revised return of income ... dismissed. 17. Now coming to ITA No.1673/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee filed return of income on 17.10.2016 and revised return on 28.10.2017 thereby declaring net income of Rs.2,73,96,750/- after claiming deduction of Rs.29,80,28,049/- under Section 80IA

The DCIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ranjit Buildcon Ltd., Unjha

ITA 2308/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

after claiming deduction of Rs.6,38,87,090/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed first revised return of income on 10.01.2009 declaring total income at Rs.11,01,90,210/-. Thereafter, the assessee company again filed the second revised return of income ... dismissed. 17. Now coming to ITA No.1673/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee filed return of income on 17.10.2016 and revised return on 28.10.2017 thereby declaring net income of Rs.2,73,96,750/- after claiming deduction of Rs.29,80,28,049/- under Section 80IA

The DCIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ranjit Buildcon Ltd., Unjha

ITA 2307/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

after claiming deduction of Rs.6,38,87,090/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed first revised return of income on 10.01.2009 declaring total income at Rs.11,01,90,210/-. Thereafter, the assessee company again filed the second revised return of income ... dismissed. 17. Now coming to ITA No.1673/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee filed return of income on 17.10.2016 and revised return on 28.10.2017 thereby declaring net income of Rs.2,73,96,750/- after claiming deduction of Rs.29,80,28,049/- under Section 80IA

The DCIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ranjit Buildcon Ltd., Unjha

ITA 2306/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

after claiming deduction of Rs.6,38,87,090/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed first revised return of income on 10.01.2009 declaring total income at Rs.11,01,90,210/-. Thereafter, the assessee company again filed the second revised return of income ... dismissed. 17. Now coming to ITA No.1673/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee filed return of income on 17.10.2016 and revised return on 28.10.2017 thereby declaring net income of Rs.2,73,96,750/- after claiming deduction of Rs.29,80,28,049/- under Section 80IA

The ACIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ranjit Buildcon Ltd., Unjha

ITA 2117/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

after claiming deduction of Rs.6,38,87,090/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed first revised return of income on 10.01.2009 declaring total income at Rs.11,01,90,210/-. Thereafter, the assessee company again filed the second revised return of income ... dismissed. 17. Now coming to ITA No.1673/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee filed return of income on 17.10.2016 and revised return on 28.10.2017 thereby declaring net income of Rs.2,73,96,750/- after claiming deduction of Rs.29,80,28,049/- under Section 80IA

The ACIT, Patan Circle, Patan vs. Ranjit Buildcon Ltd., Unjha

ITA 2116/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80I

after claiming deduction of Rs.6,38,87,090/- under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed first revised return of income on 10.01.2009 declaring total income at Rs.11,01,90,210/-. Thereafter, the assessee company again filed the second revised return of income ... dismissed. 17. Now coming to ITA No.1673/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2016-17, the assessee filed return of income on 17.10.2016 and revised return on 28.10.2017 thereby declaring net income of Rs.2,73,96,750/- after claiming deduction of Rs.29,80,28,049/- under Section 80IA

Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited Satara, Koregaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Satara

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

ITA 651/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 651/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Moti Heights, Azaad Chowk, New St-Stand, Koregaon, Satara-415501 Pan: Aaeas1871L . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pr[mo^ Scnat_ [‘L^. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Uma Shankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P(2)

Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Vs ITO ITA No.651/PUN/2024 AY:2013-14 original return filed u/s 139(1) or belated return u/s 139(4) or revised return filed u/s 139(5) of the Act. However, this time luxury was allowed to assessee upto the AY 2018-19 and not thereafter. W.e.f ... assessee is that claim to be made/raised in return of income and not otherwise but such return may it be original, or belated or revised return. 7.2 In the instant case, we observed from the records that, while computing the taxable income the appellant assessee did raise a claim

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1342/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1342/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Aurangabad. Vs. Marsh Fincom Pvt. Ltd., 9Th Floor, Gold Crest, Ns Road No.10, Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai- 400049. Pan : Aabck0760B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts By Quashing Proceedings U/S. 153A In Respect Of Assessee Where The Assessee’S Case Was Covered Under Section 132 Of The Act Dated 20.08.2014. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Made

For Appellant: Shri Deepak ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Sandeep Jhaveri. A notice u/s 153A of the IT Act was issued on 21.08.2015. In response to the above notice, the assessee furnished revised return of income on 30.10.2015 declaring total income at Rs.4,02,87,010/- which includes undisclosed income of Rs.3,42,00,000/-. During the course

Shri Amjad Ahmed Sheikh, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 18/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

income on 23.01.2015 declaring total income of Rs.10,27,770/-. Assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act was completed on 19.12.2018 by accepting the revised returned income. You are proprietor of M/s. Taj Enterprises, Butibori, Nagpur, engaged in the business of manpower supply and during this year under consideration

DCIT, Central Cirlce-28, New Delhi vs. Hazoorilal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 432/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarhazoorilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Vs. Acit, M-44, M-Block, Greater Kailash- Central Circle-28, 1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadch3922L Dcit, Vs. Hazoorilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Central Circle-28, M-44, M-Block, Greater New Delhi Kailash-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadch3922L Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Shri Varun Kholi, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

disclosing total income of Rs. 3,96,75,690/-, wherein, the surrendered income during the search was not included by the assessee. Later a revised return was filed voluntarily by the assessee on 20.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 7,63,89,220/-. It is pertinent to note that this ... revised return was duly filed within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act. In the revised return, the surrender made by the assessee during the course of search to the tune of Rs. 3,67,13,530/- was duly included as business income of the assessee

Hazoorilal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Cirlce-28, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 195/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarhazoorilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Vs. Acit, M-44, M-Block, Greater Kailash- Central Circle-28, 1, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadch3922L Dcit, Vs. Hazoorilal Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Central Circle-28, M-44, M-Block, Greater New Delhi Kailash-1, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadch3922L Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Shri Varun Kholi, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

disclosing total income of Rs. 3,96,75,690/-, wherein, the surrendered income during the search was not included by the assessee. Later a revised return was filed voluntarily by the assessee on 20.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 7,63,89,220/-. It is pertinent to note that this ... revised return was duly filed within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act. In the revised return, the surrender made by the assessee during the course of search to the tune of Rs. 3,67,13,530/- was duly included as business income of the assessee

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Bhawan Mohan Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2624/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Vs Bhawan Mohan Garg Circle – 32 (1) C-16, Green Park New Delhi Extension, New Delhi Pan No.Aahpg2084K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 195Section 40Section 40t

Garg Industries. The assessee had filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.42,73,728/- on 28.09.2011. Thereafter, assessee has filed revised return of income of Rs.4,24,245/-. The reason for the revised return as explained by the assessee was that two of his real estate projects ... Banks. 13. From the perusal of the order of the Ld CIT(A) it is evident that the AO assessee has filed the revised return of income and included the share of profit from the two projects amounting to Rs 96,65,203/-. The AO has again added the amount

Mr. Chiragkumar Nandalal Makadia, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(7), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 250Section 6(1)Section 90

Centralized Processing Center ("CPC"), Bengaluru by denying the relief claimed under section 90 of the Act of INR 2,65,367 in the revised return of income. 1.2 The learned CIT(A) has erred in denying the relief on the ground that the Appellant has not filed Form 67 within ... without Chiragkumar Nandalal Makadia Vs. ITO Assessment Year: 2019-20 Page 2 of 6 appreciating the fact that the same was furnished alongwith the revised return of income wherein the foreign tax credit was claimed as prescribed under Rule 128 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 1.3 The learned