“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

Malabar Cements Limited, Palakkad vs. ACIT, Palakkad

ITA 71/COCH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnan Unny, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 250

return of income electronically as per details given below. Assessment Date of filing Income Date of filing Income year original return declared – Rs. revised return declared

Rajtelevision Network Limited, Chnnai vs. ACIT, Non Corporae Circle-20, Chennai

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 531/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 530 & 531/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2018-19 Acit, Raj Television Network V. Non Corporate Circle 20, Limited, Chennai – 34. No. 32, Poes Road 2Nd Street, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aaacr-3580-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri.K. Balasubramanian, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri.K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. CIT

Section 263

wherein the Apex Court restricted the power of AO to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a Revised Return. 9. Hence, in view of the above, assessee's depreciation claimed wrongly is reduced tothe extent of Rs.2,18,24,056/- and accordingly the Depreciation reworks to Rs.4 ... itis a stale claim. Similarly, the appellant had made incorrect claim of depreciation of Rs.2,18,24,056/-. These was option to file revised return incase of assessee subsequent to filing of ITR with incorrect depreciation within prescribed time but the option was not exercised and issue came to light

Raj Teleision Network Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporae Circle-20, Chennai

In the result both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 530/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri.K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.T.M. Suganthamala, Addl. CIT

Section 263

Shriram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 173/CHNY/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.173/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shriram Finance Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of [Formerly Known As Shriram Transport Income Tax, Finance Company Limited), Corporate Circle 3(1), Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Chennai. Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 017. [Pan: Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT

Section 14ASection 2

observed that the date reported in the income tax return is sacrosanct and cannot be ignored by the Assessing Officer without filing revised return of income within the time stipulated under section 139(5) of the Act. Therefore, he held the interest computed for the delay of two months after

Amrita Society, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-I Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no order as to costs

ITA 124/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Aug 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

speed post or through EVC/OTP modes by 30.09.2020. However, the appellant did not comply with this requirement, instead, it chose to file a revised return. Consequently, the unverified return was deemed invalid/non- est, and the revised return, which was properly verified, was processed. 6. In view of the above ... copy of ITR verification could not be sent at CPC, Bangalore within 120 days of submission of ITR. 14’’Hence, subsequently assessee again filed revised return immediately after COVID restrictions were lifted, declaring the same income as shown in original return and verified the same through digital signature. The copy

Dasanna Hanumanthappa, Mysore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1238/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Vageesh Hedge, A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44A

reasonableness and genuineness of the same could not be ascertained. 3. Facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and filed revised return of income on 18.09.2018, declaring total income of Rs.10,10,070/-. Subsequently the case was selected for Limited Scrutiny on the issue that

Parveen Banu Hebbal, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 658/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 Parveen Banu Hebbal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 8-2-603/13/3/N/1/A, Ward – 8(1), 1St Floor, Singara Colony, Hyderabad. Banjara Hills, Road No.10, Telangana – 500034. Pan : Abxph4274M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Ashish Kumar Sukhla, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 07.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.08.2024

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Sukhla

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80G

declaring income under the head Salary of Rs.22,15,660/- and after claiming deductions, claimed refund of Rs.56,160/-. Thereafter, a revised return was filed on 22.05.2021 declaring income of rs.1,20,860/- after claiming deduction of Rs.25 lakhs u/s 80GGC and claimed a refund of Rs.5 ... ld.AR submitted that someone has wrongly claimed it as donation towards political party and that she has not filed revised return. The ld.AR furthermore submitted that the proceedings with respect to this ground were exparte before the ld.CIT(A) and hence, requested the Bench to give one more opportunity

Arulmigu Siddhi Vinayagar Temple Trust, Chennai vs. ITO Exemptions Ward 3, Chennai

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

ITA 1411/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri J. Prabhakar, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. M.S. Deeptha, JCIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

justified and the same is upheld. Accordingly, Ground no.2, 3 and 4 raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 4. As regards to treating the revised return as invalid by CIT(A), we hereby state that the return has been processed by CPC, Bengaluru u/s.143(1) of the Act and based

Iqbal Noor Mohamed Bijal, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 160/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

were inadvertently not included in the original VAT return for the period July 2016 to September 2016. Copy of the original VAT return and revised return filed on 21/01/2017 & 03/05/2017 respectively is enclosed herewith refer Annexure 6. 6………… 7. The addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer by merely stating

Avik Anup Prabhu, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year : 2020-21 Avik Anup Prabhu Vs. Dcit, Circle 22(2), Osho Drive, Gadaipur, Income Tax Department, Mehrauli, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 110 030 New Delhi – 110 002 (Pan: Axipp8009P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aditya Kumar, Ca & Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Respondent By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2024 Order

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 90

assessment year in dispute the assessee filed his return of income originally u/s. 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income claiming Foreign Tax Credit amounting to Rs. 49,54,248/- alongwith Form No. 67. While processing the return of income of the assessee ... support of its claim of FTC amounting to Rs. 49,54,248/- in terms of Section 90 of the Act, subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income alongwith Form No. 67. However, assessee’s claim of FTC has been disallowed only for the reason that Form No. 67 claiming

C I T vs. Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd

ITA/531/2008HC Punjab & Haryana05 Aug 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Section 10BSection 10B(3)Section 80

examined by this Court in ed in ITA-531-2008:- pellate Tribunal was justified in hen no claim was made by the or the revised return, which is in me Court decision in the case of 2 ? n law, the Hon’ble Income Tax ed in granting the benefit ... eady examined by this Court in pellate Tribunal has erred in law when no claim was made by the or the revised return, which is in me Court decision in the case

Piaggio Vehicles Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 611/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

income for AY 2016-17 on 30.11.2016 declaring total income of Rs.2,44,62,64,850/- which was subsequently revised by filing the revised return on 08.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,44,75,01,310/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notices

Polakulath Narayanan Renai Medicity, Kochi vs. The DCIT Non Corp Circle 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 253/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Polakulath Narayanan Renai Dcit, Non Corporate Circle 1(1) Medicity C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Main Road, Palarivattom Vs. Kochi 682018 Kochi 682025 Pan – Aaifp7597B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Swarnalatha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Soundararajan K.,J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.04.2023 In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Running A Hospital & During The Assessment Year The Assessing Authority Had Capitalised The Interest Component Of The Interior Works For The Reason That The Work Was Done Over A Period Of Time & Hence The Interest Till The Completion Of The Work Is To Be Capitalised. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Also Capitalised The Interest Component On The Capital Asset I.E.On The Sewage Plant Since The Same Was Put Into Use At The Fag End Of The Assessment Year. The Ao Also Treated The Interest On Fixed Deposits As Margin Money Under The Head ‘Income From Other

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Swarnalatha, Sr.DR

Section 139(5)

instead of treating it as business income.The AO took into consideration the original return and made the assessment. The AO had not taken the revised return filed on 31.03.2016 in which an income of Rs 1,89,20,352 was shown as against the income ... declared in the original return.The AO without considering the revised return had made the assessment by taking the income declared in the original return and therefore the difference income of Rs 34,66,159,being the claim of depreciation on the w.d.v of the capital asset, which was disallowed during

Sangeeta Godha, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh vs. ITO-2(3), Bhopal, Income Tax

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsangeeta Godha, Ito 2(3), E-3/18-19, Bhopal Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 56

amount but apparently assessee was not aware of the inadvertent mistake committed in the return filed by the consultant and the time to file revised return lapsed. But it was only during the course of assessment proceedings this error of incorrect figure came to her knowledge. I find that this

Arrow Electronics India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 618/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 69C

were never furnished to the Appellant despite repeated requests. 3.4. The learned CIT(A) has affirmed the contradictory stand of the AU whereby the revised return filed by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings has not been accepted while the imports to the extent, they are disclosed in the financial ... done the same thing in A. Y 2019-20 also wherein incorrect ITR has been filed by the assessee on portal and manual revised return was filed at a later date beyond due date of filing of ITR. Therefore, the revised ITR, manually filed by the assessee is not accepted

Shanana Riyaz Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO-41(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2921/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shyam AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 50C

year under consideration filed her original return of income on 31/08/2018 declaring total income at Rs.6,37,416/-. Thereafter, the assessee e-filed the revised return of income on 30/03/2019 declaring total income at Rs.9,37,130/-. In the present case, the information was received from

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Pazhavangadikkara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd

Appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and

ITA/12/2019HC Kerala02 Aug 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.

Section 143(3)Section 186Section 80A(5)Section 80P

Section 186 of the Act, he could not have claimed the deduction u/s 80P of the Act in a revised return since a revised return is, by definition, a return that revises an earlier return filed. In the instant case, since there was no valid return originally filed, there

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula vs. M/S Venus Remedies Limited

ITA/10/2024HC Punjab & Haryana02 Aug 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

Section 115JSection 143Section 154

appellate proce matter against the order of C nder Section 154 of the Act, r Section 154 of the Act, 1961 e filed a revised return and not with regard to the amount ded ad ‘Patents IPR Technologies’. use the judgment passed by th the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S Longview Tea Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. -6(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 130/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 declaring total income of Rs. 41,52,490/-. Subsequently, assessee had also filed a revised return of Rs. 41,52,490/-. The return was selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by notices u/s 143(2) as well

DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tarmat Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3106/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit 13(3)(2), Tarmat Limited Room No. 229, Roman Tarmat Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, General Vaidya Marg, M. K. Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Mumbai- 400020. Mumbai- 400063. Pan: Aaact1561G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jigar MehtaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule, (Addl. CIT), SR. D.R

Section 153Section 250Section 250(4)Section 68

assessment year 2018-19 on 31/10/2018 showing ‘NIL’ income and also showing current year loan of Rs.8,49,11,954/- and subsequently, filed a revised return on 28/03/2019 which was duly processed by the CPC on 02/10/2019. Subsequently, on the basis of the revised return of the assessee company ... case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS on the issue i) increased in TDS in Revised Return ii) Refund Claim, iii) Unsecured Loans, iv) Contract Receipts or Fees. Accordingly, notice u/s. 153 (2) and 152(1) were issued from time to time and the assessee made compliance thereon