“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

Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited, Mangalore vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and assessee appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 152/PAN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019-20

For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

book profits u/s. 115JB of the act amounting to Rs.5,69,31,87,138/-. Page 8 ITA No. 152/PAN/2023 & Subsequently a revised return was filed by assessee on 30.06.2020, wherein there was a difference in the income declared under the normal provisions of the act. 4.4 Assessee was subsequently

Minaxi Mahesh Pawani (Deceased) Thriugh Legal Heir Pratik Mahesh Pawani, Mumbai vs. ITO-International Taxation-Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4380/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17 Minaxi Mahesh Pawani (Deceased) Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Pratik Mahesh International Taxation, Vs. Pawani, 1406, Topaz, L.B.S. Road, Ward – 3(3)(1), Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400 080 Mumbai (Pan : Arjpp5191R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ketan L. Vajani, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. Vajani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 69A

gains on transfer of right to acquire the property for the reason of the failure on the part of the appellant to file a revised return of income to claim the said exemption. 2 Minaxi Mahesh Pawani, AY 2016-17 3. The CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition ... term capital gain (STCG) and as to denial of claim of deduction u/s. 54F for the reason of failure by the assessee to file revised return of income for claiming the said deduction. 5. Brief facts of the case as culled out from records are that assessee was allotted flat

Bhartiya Jnanpith, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward Exemption 1(3), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 143Section 154

under : “ The contentions of the appellant have been duly considered. It is noted that the appellant itself had filed original return and a revised return declaring income of Rs. 1,11,65,510/-. The return was subjected to scrutiny assessment and this issue now being raised of the interest income ... subjected to taxation twice was never raised in course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings. If the assessee itself files an original return and a revised return declaring an income of Rs.1,11,65,510/- and thereafter pursuant to scrutiny assessment this income as per original return as well as revised

Bhartiya Jnanpith, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward Exemption 1(3), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 12ASection 143Section 154

M/S Punjab Small Industries and Exports Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 556/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 556/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2019-20 M/S Punjab Small Industries & Vs. The Dcit / Acit, Export Corporation Ltd., बनाम Circle 2(1), Udyog Bhawan, 3Rd To 6Th Floor, Chandigarh Sector 17-A, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcp1602M अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

For Appellant: Sh. Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

industries. The original return was filed on 29.10.2019 declaring an income of Rs. 49,10,74,520/-. Thereafter, the Assessee has filed the revised return on 29.10.2019 declaring an income of Rs. 49,08,24,170/-. The return was e-filed and the Audited Report in Form

M/S Punjab Small Industries and Exports Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 2(1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 555/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 555/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 M/S Punjab Small Industries & Vs. The Dcit / Acit, Export Corporation Ltd., बनाम Circle 2(1), Udyog Bhawan, 3Rd To 6Th Floor, Chandigarh Sector 17-A, Chandigarh 160017 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcp1602M अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing )

For Appellant: Sh. Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 43Section 43B

declaring an income of Rs. 555 --Chd-2022 – M/s Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd, Chandigarh 3 8,91,51,910/-. Thereafter, revised return was filed on 30.03.2019 declaring an income of Rs. 20,48,35,290/-. The return was e-filed and the Audited Report in Form ... Industries and Export Corporation Ltd, Chandigarh 4 I have considered the submissions of the Appellant. The undisputed facts in the case are that the revised return of income has been filed on 30/03/2019. Bonus of Rs.76,75,100/- has been paid in November 2018 i.e. F.Y.2018-19 (A.Y.2019-20). As per section

Randheja Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3 Now Ward-1, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 649/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Randheja Dudh Utpadak The Ito, Ward-3 Sahakari Mandli Ltd. Vs Now Ward-1 To-Randheja Gandhinagar. Tal: Gandhinagar Pin : 382 620 Pan : Aacar 5164 K (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short Referred To As Ld.Cit(A)] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.11.2021 Pertaining To Asst.Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Notified That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By Limitation By 581 Days. In Order To Explain The Reasons For The Impugned Delay, The Ld.Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Cit(A)/Nfac Order Was Passed Against The Assessee On 22.11.2021. However, Due To Covid-19 Pandemic Limitation For Filing Appeal Before The Court Of Law Was Extended Till February, 2022. Therefore, After Expiry Of The Limitation For Filing Of The Appeal On Feb., 2022, The Assessee Was Required To File Appeal Within 60 Days Of The Same I.E. By April, 2022. But The Assessee Could File The Appeal On

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr.DR

Section 250

return of income which is not filed by due date u/s 139(1) of the Act but filed belatedly or by way of a revised return filed. In the present case however finding that no valid return had been filed by the assessee, the assessee having claimed deduction in return ... terms of the said section the claim would have been allowable to the assessee even if the same is claimed in a belated or revised return, however, since the assessee having not filed a valid return of income in the instant case, such deduction was not allowable to the assessee

Praj Industries Limited, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1413/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

design and engineering services. It filed its e-return for AY 2017-18 on 29.11.2017 declaring loss of Rs.4,54,62,786/- but filed revised return on 27.03.2019 declaring income of Rs.20,29,22,330/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and statutory notice

Rajaram Patidar, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer 2(4), Hoshangabad Road

Appeal is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 129/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2010-11 Rajaram Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, H.No.112, Near Ram Lila 2(4), Maidan, Hoshangabad Road, बनाम/ Ward No. 52-53, Bhopal Vs. Misrod (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Bkapp7594R Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2024

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

there remained a taxable gain of Rs. 3,85,258/- even after exemption u/s 54B, the assessee offered the same by means of a revised return and paid tax on 07.11.2012 but the AO did not take cognizance of assessee’s revised return treating the same as invalid having been ... filed beyond statutory time for filing of revised return. Further, the assessee computed capital gain by adopting estimating cost at fair market value as on 01.04.1981 @ Rs. 5 lakh/ hectare but the same was finally upheld by ITAT @ Rs. 1 lakh/hectare in Para 30 of ITAT’s order, this

M/S. Arham Mitra Mandal, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer(Exemptions)-Ward-1, Bangalore

ITA 1110/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 250

apart for specified objects). Form 10 statement under section 11(2) of the Act was filed electronically on 27.09.2018. Subsequently, the assessee Trust filed revised return on 02.01.2019. It is stated that revised return was filed by the assessee presuming it had not given the details of registration under section ... noted that in the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act, the original return filed on 29.09.2018 was not processed, instead the revised return was treated as original return in the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act. 10. Aggrieved by the intimation issued under section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Sonata Information Technology Limited, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1359/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2015-2016

For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 37Section 40

normal provisions of the Act and book profits of INR 25,30,49,904/- under Section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessee filed revised return declaring total income of INR.35,01,84,930/- under normal provisions of the Act, and INR 36,22,66,685/- as Book Profits under

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Sonata Information Technology Limited, Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1352/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 37Section 40

Faisul Ramon Nagel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.1248/Mum/2024 is allowedfor statistical purpose

ITA 1248/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Addl. CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154oSection 244ASection 250Section 90

Erred in not granting relief of foreign tax credit for the reason that requisite Form 67 was filed along with revised return of income under Section 139(5) of the Act and not with the original return of income filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. 3. Should have ... declaring any foreign tax credit (in short, ‘FTC’) under section 90 of the Act. So, no form No.67 was required to file. During the revised return, the assessee declared the foreign tax credit and filed the Form No.67 U/R 128. After pointing out the defect in original return, the revised

Manav Malik, Noida vs. ACIT Circle 5(2)(2), Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2293/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2019-20 Manav Malik, Vs Acit, B-146, Sector-19, Circle 5(2)(2), Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201 301. Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Apzpm1646L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Kirti Bindal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2024

For Appellant: Ms Kirti Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

claimed FTC of Rs. 4,73,779/- u/s. 90 of the Act read with Article 24 of India Australia tax treaty ("DTAA") in a revised return of income filed on 31.8.2018. The Assessee had not filed the Form 67 before filing the return of income. On realising the same ... Assessee filed Form 67 in support of claim of foreign tax credit on 18.04.2020. The revised return of income was processed by Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) electronically and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.05.2020 was passed disallowing the claim of FTC. 5. The Assessee filed a rectification

Supreme Nonwovens Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 235/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, Advocate& Ms. NehaFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia – Sr.AR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 250

Rs.77,38,09,110/- of the investments related to crediting the exempt income under section 14A of the Act. Later, assessee filed a revised return and offered addition U/s 14A of the Act amount of Rs.1,69,01,920/- suo motu under Rule 8D of the Income tax Rule ... Rs.77,38,091/- made under section 14A in the original income-tax return is an inadvertent mistake which is duly rectified in the revised return and the interest bearing fund which invested for earning exempt income amount to Rs.1,69,01,920/- was properly disallowed. 5. The Ld.AR further argued

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Afcons Infrastructure Limited, Andheri West

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 1152/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: us. The Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Revenue had filed the appeal electronically and thereafter, furnished appeals in physical form. Two separate appeal numbers, being ITA No. 1152/Mum/2024 and ITA No. 1153/Mum/2024, were inadvertently allotted by the Registry for the same appeal. It was submitted that ITA No. 1152/Mum/2024 listed before us be treated as a duplicate appeal and be dismissed as withdrawn. The Learned Authorized Representative did not have any objecti

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 147

provisions of the Act. The Appellant declared Book Profit of INR.72,96,88,814/- under Section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the Appellant filed revised return of income on 12/04/2012 and thereafter, on 07/08/2012. As per the revised return of income filed on 07/08/2012, the Appellant declared total taxable income

Suresh Chand Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

connection with the additional income declared by the assessee. The assessee has declared the above said additional income voluntarily and filed the revised return of income before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer has accepted the above revised return of income and completed the assessment based on the above revised ... Short Term Capital Gain. He submitted that the Assessing Officer cannot mechanically proceed to impugned penalty when he completed the assessment only based on revised return of income filed by the assessee. He submitted that in the similar facts on Amit Bansal and Suresh Chand Bansal vs. ACIT record

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Shahana Raza, New Delh vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 2111/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Baldevraj, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 48Section 54Section 54F

entitled to file a revised/alternate claim u/s 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the same can only be filed through a revised return of income.” 3. The assessee sold a house and invested the capital gains to purchase another house to claim exemption u/s 54F of the Income ... Rs.20,000/- as advocate fee. The Assessing Officer as well as the ld. DRP disallowed the expenses as the assessee has failed to file revised return claiming these expenses. 4. After going through the record, we hold that the stamp duty, transfer fee and advocate fee are intricately linked