← 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

The Erode City Municipal Corporation Emp Co-Op T& C Limited, Erode vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Erode

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 509/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.509 & 510/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-2019 & 2020-2021)

For Appellant: Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(6)Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

reproduced below: "The exemption provisions are to be complied with strictly and literally and the same cannot be construed as procedural requirement. Filing a revised return under Section 139(5) and taking a contrary stand and/or claiming the exemption, which was specifically not claimed earlier while filing the original return

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 547/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

evade tax. 6.5 Following are the deduction claimed wrongly by the appellant for which he was not eligible and which was withdrawn by filing revised return in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 148:- Section deduction Amount claimed 80CCF saving benefits for taxpayers who invest in government-approved infrastructure bonds

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 546/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

evade tax. 6.5 Following are the deduction claimed wrongly by the appellant for which he was not eligible and which was withdrawn by filing revised return in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 148:- Section deduction Amount claimed 80CCF saving benefits for taxpayers who invest in government-approved infrastructure bonds ... evade tax. 6.5 Following are the deduction claimed wrongly by the appellant for which he was not eligible and which was withdrawn by filing revised return in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 148: X X X X 6.6 The bare perusal of section makes it clear that

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 545/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

evade tax. 6.5 Following are the deduction claimed wrongly by the appellant for which he was not eligible and which was withdrawn by filing revised return in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 148:- Section deduction Amount claimed 80CCF saving benefits for taxpayers who invest in government-approved infrastructure ... evade tax. 6.5 Following are the deduction claimed wrongly by the appellant for which he was not eligible and which was withdrawn by filing revised return in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 148: X XX X 6.6 The bare perusal of section makes it clear that who is eligible

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

ITA 544/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

evade tax. 6.5 Following are the deduction claimed wrongly by the appellant for which he was not eligible and which was withdrawn by filing revised return in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 148:- Section deduction Amount claimed 80CCF saving benefits for taxpayers who invest in government-approved infrastructure bonds ... evade tax. 6.5 Following are the deduction claimed wrongly by the appellant for which he was not eligible and which was withdrawn by filing revised return in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 148: X X X X 6.6 The bare perusal of section makes it clear that

Ajoy Sharma, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur

The appeal of the appellant is partly allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80C

evade tax. 6.5 Following are the deduction claimed wrongly by the appellant for which he was not eligible and which was withdrawn by filing revised return in pursuance to the notice issued u/s 148:- Section deduction Amount claimed 80CCF saving benefits for taxpayers who invest in government-approved infrastructure bonds

M/S. Reddy Structures Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 625/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaiana Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramanathan, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 264(1)Section 80I

Koshti Vs. CIT reported in 276 ITR 165 has held as under: 18. The position is, therefore, that, regardless of whether the revised return was filed or not, once an assessee is in a position to show that the assessee has been over-assessed under the provisions

Mamsa Co-Op Industrial Estate Ltd, Mumbai Central vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (A), Mumbai

ITA 1351/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Marlon RegoFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 80P

filed return of income under new PAN but forgotten to mention the details of cash deposits in the same. However, the Appellant shall file revised return to include the details of cash deposits. Vide separate 3 Assessment Year 2017-18 letter, dated 05/07/2018, the Appellant furnished the following documents before ... copy of pass-book, copy of bank deposit slip book and details of members. 9. The Assessing Officer has noted that despite giving opportunities revised return was not filed by the Appellant under new PAN and no return was filed under old PAN. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued show-cause

Interglobe Enterprises Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3913/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 14A

under dispute assessee filed its return of income on 2 24.09.2008 declaring income of Rs. 11,13,88,188/-. Subsequently, on 18.02.2010 assessee filed revised return of income declaring income of Rs. 10,90,63,680/-. Assessment in case of assessee was completed u/s 143(3) of the Income

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1142/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

consequently in terms of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the assessee cannot claim refund in the absence of any revised return filed in this regard. The application moved under Section 237 was thus rejected. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1140/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

consequently in terms of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the assessee cannot claim refund in the absence of any revised return filed in this regard. The application moved under Section 237 was thus rejected. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1139/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

consequently in terms of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the assessee cannot claim refund in the absence of any revised return filed in this regard. The application moved under Section 237 was thus rejected. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1138/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

consequently in terms of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the assessee cannot claim refund in the absence of any revised return filed in this regard. The application moved under Section 237 was thus rejected. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1137/DEL/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

consequently in terms of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the assessee cannot claim refund in the absence of any revised return filed in this regard. The application moved under Section 237 was thus rejected. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

Pernod Ricard India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-31, New Delhi

ITA 1136/DEL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115OSection 237

consequently in terms of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the assessee cannot claim refund in the absence of any revised return filed in this regard. The application moved under Section 237 was thus rejected. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

Tresa Jolly, Ernakulam vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Kochi

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

ITA 230/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms.V.Swarnalatha, Senior DR
Section 143(2)Section 80C

u/s.143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) was issued, for which the assessee furnished copy of acknowledgement for filing revised return and the annexure filed along with the return and declared her residential status as resident and withdrew the claim of exemption made ... original return. The 2 Smt.Tresa Jolly. assessee also claimed loss in the house property and deduction u/s.80C of the Act in the revised return, but the Assessing Officer (AO) had not accepted the same since the said claims were not made in the original return and the revised return

Maharana Pratap Social Research and Education Society, Bhopal vs. Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

ITA 67/IND/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2008-09 Maharana Pratap Social C.P.C., Research & Education Bengaluru Society, H.No.6, Sector, Vidya Nagar, बनाम/ Hoshangabad Road, Vs. Bhopal, Huzur University S.O., Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaaam9428K Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah, Ca & Shri Soumya Bumb, C.A. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2024

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

claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. That for the assessment year 2020-21 the extended deadline for filing a revised return was May 31,2021. The notice of intimation of demand was issued on 10.07.21, the assessee was unaware of the error in the return ... until the notice was served. Due to the time limit of revised return being lapsed the assessee could not revise the return and eventually revised Form 10B. 3. That the revised Form 10B is in conformity with the audited financial statements wherein the total application of income as per audited

ACIT Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Motilal Oswal Home Finance Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 93/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Malav P. Sheth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr. D/R
Section 139Section 143(3)

Debentures of Rs 2,00,53,81,881/ made in the return of income when assessee had failed to claim such deduction by filing revised return of income u/s. 139 of the Income Tax Act.? I.T.A. No. 93/Mum/2024 2 2. Whether on the facts and in law, the Ld.CIT

M/S. Kodava Education Society, Ponnampet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 764/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeykodava Education Society Acit (Exemptions), Circle-1 Po Box No. 11, Halligattu Unity Building Annexe Vs. Ponnampet 571216 5Th Floor, Mission Road Pan – Aaaak1322J Bengaluru 560027 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishal Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2003-24/1061703575(1) Dated 28.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Impugned Order Of The Appellate Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Liable To Set Aside In So Far As The Same Is Incorrect, Irregular, Improper, Unlawful & Oppose To The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2 That The Learned Appellate Commissioner Erred In Not Taking Cognizance Of The Fact That The Appellant Had Committed Certain Errors & Omissions In Filling Up The Return Of Income Which Ought To Have Been Substituted With The Correct Figures To Arrive At The Taxable Income, If Any & As Such The Impugned Order Is Liable To Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

appeal, the appellant seeks to recast its accounts afresh and also recompute the income and application and the exempt income thereof without filing a revised return which is not admissible in law. Further, by relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Rajiv Sareen ... Court had held that the assessee can make a claim for deduction which has not been claimed in the return only by filing a revised return within the time allowed and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee trust. Aggrieved, assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal

Nanjappa Shivamurthy, Chintamani vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Chikaballapur, Chikkaballapur

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

ITA 650/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri L Raghavendra Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Matta Padma, Addl. CIT

Koshti Vs. CIT reported in 276 ITR 165 has held as under: 18. The position is, therefore, that, regardless of whether the revised return was filed or not, once an assessee is in a position to show that the assessee has been over-assessed under the provisions