← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur vs. Smt. Anju Ajay Saraf, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

ITA 32/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 May 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 5Section 80I

original return under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was filed on 30/09/2012, which was subsequently revised and the revised return of income was filed under section 139(5) of the Act on 11/10/2012, declaring total income of ` 1,11,21,570. The Assessing Officer concluded ... issued on 29/09/2015, which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee filed a letter on 07/10/2015, stating that the revised return filed under section 139(5) of the Act may be treated as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. The notice under

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Nagpur vs. Smt. Anju Ajay Saraf, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the A

ITA 30/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 May 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh BanthiaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 5Section 80I

original return under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was filed on 30/09/2012, which was subsequently revised and the revised return of income was filed under section 139(5) of the Act on 11/10/2012, declaring total income of ` 1,11,21,570. The Assessing Officer concluded ... issued on 29/09/2015, which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee filed a letter on 07/10/2015, stating that the revised return filed under section 139(5) of the Act may be treated as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. The notice under

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Viskahapatnam vs. Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Producers Company Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed for the A

ITA 239/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.239/Viz/2020 & 237/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year : 2012-13 &2013-14) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Sri Vijaya Visakha Milk Income Tax Producers Company Limited Central Circle-2 Visakha Diary, Bhpv Post Visakhapatnam Nh-5, Nathayyapalem Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aajcs7398P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajiv Garg & Ors (supra) held as follows : Pursuant to the notice under s.148, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered ... peace of mind and to avoid hazards of litigation and also to save himself from any penal action. Later on, on the basis of revised return, the assessment was framed and the return submitted by the assessee was regularized as it is. During the course of assessment, the aforesaid explanation

Sap Holdings & Leasing Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Assistant of Income Tax 8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4837/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(14)Section 199

rejected the claim of the assessee on the reasoning that the additional claim was not made by filing revised returns of income. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld CIT(A) held that the claim for TDS credit was made in both the years beyond the time limit prescribed

Sap Holidings & Leasing Pvt Lted, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4836/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 155(14)Section 199

rejected the claim of the assessee on the reasoning that the additional claim was not made by filing revised returns of income. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld CIT(A) held that the claim for TDS credit was made in both the years beyond the time limit prescribed

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 2308/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

GROUND NO. 9 The CIT(A) ought to have directed the AO to charge interest under section 234C per Revised Return of Income. The appellants crave leave to add to, amend, alter, vary, omit or substitute the above grounds of appeal or add a new ground or grounds ... income tax and the Book profits computed u/sec 115JB of the Act are Rs.93,49,35,328/-.Subsequently the assessee has filed the revised return of income on 31.03.2005 disclosing a total income of Rs.74,54,35,786/- and Book profits u/sec 115JB of the Act of Rs.93

ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India ( Formelry Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

ITA 2188/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

Novartis India Limited, Mumbai GROUND NO. 9 The CIT(A) ought to have directed the AO to charge interest under section 234C per Revised Return of Income. The appellants crave leave to add to, amend, alter, vary, omit or substitute the above grounds of appeal or add a new ground ... income tax and the Book profits computed u/sec 115JB of the Act are Rs.93,49,35,328/-.Subsequently the assessee has filed the revised return of income on 31.03.2005 disclosing a total income of Rs.74,54,35,786/- and Book profits u/sec 115JB of the Act of Rs.93

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Ctr Manufacturing Industries Private Limited, Pune

ITA 998/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.998/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Dy.Commissioner Ctr Manufacturing Of Income Tax, Circle- Vs Industries Private Limited, 1(1), Pune. Nagar Road, Vadgaon Sheri, S.O. Pune City, Pune – 411014. Pan: Aaacc7256R Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

No.998/PUN/2023[R]&C.O.No.4/PUN/2024 [A] CTR Manufacturing Industries Private Limited AY 2014-15 Prototypes that was suo-moto withdrawn by the assessee in revised return of income?” 2. The Assessee in Cross Objection No.4/PUN/2024 raised the following grounds: “A. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... reduction in the total income as per revised computation filedduring assessment proceedings on 21 October 2016 vis-a-vis the income reported in revised return of income filed on 16 September 2015 is mainly on account of the following reasons: a. Reinstatement of claim of weighted deduction under section

Chiguruvada Dileep Kumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 143/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 80CSection 80E

return was processed on 18.03.2021 determining refund in the hands of the assessee, which was paid to the assessee. Later, on 20.03.2021, a revised return was filed declaring total income of Rs.34,34,200/- and the exemption claimed u/s. 10(13A) of the act got reduced. The assessee declared loss ... under consideration claiming refund of Rs.11,19,880/-. 3.5 The refund of Rs.10,91,670/- was credited to the assessee and subsequently on the revised return filed by the assessee, a scrutiny notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 29.06.2021. The assessee has completed during the assessment proceedings that

Chiguruvada Dileepkumar, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 832/BANG/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 80CSection 80E

return was processed on 18.03.2021 determining refund in the hands of the assessee, which was paid to the assessee. Later, on 20.03.2021, a revised return was filed declaring total income of Rs.34,34,200/- and the exemption claimed u/s. 10(13A) of the act got reduced. The assessee declared loss ... under consideration claiming refund of Rs.11,19,880/-. 3.5 The refund of Rs.10,91,670/- was credited to the assessee and subsequently on the revised return filed by the assessee, a scrutiny notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 29.06.2021. The assessee has completed during the assessment proceedings that

Smt. Manisha Shivaji Kadukar (Legal Heir of Late Shri Shivaji Maruty Kadukar), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-34(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4485/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 89

that the appellant assessee e–filed his return of income on 24.04.2017 declaring his total income of Rs. 4561230/–. Thereafter the assessee filed revised return on 30.03.2019 declaring his income at Rs. 5292130/– for the assessment year 2017–18. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. After the service

Orbit Exports Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3582/MUM/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

support of its claim of deduction under section 80-IA of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 22/07/2020 declaring total income equivalent to the total income as declared in the original return of income, after claiming a deduction of Rs.75,94,111 under section ... vide intimation dated 15/09/2020 issued under section 143(1) of the Act processed the revised return of income filed by the assessee on 22/07/2020 and disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80-IA of the Act again on the basis that the assessee has failed to file Form no.10CCB within

Manoj Kumar Srivastava, New Delhi vs. Circle 5(1)(1) G B Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3007/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Samita Patni, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90Section 90(2)

Rule 128(9) is a procedural law and should not control the claim of FTC. Ground No. 2: That the Right to file a Revised Return is a statutory right u/s 139(5) and the Original Return, which was filed u/s 139(1), stood withdrawn once the ITR was Revised ... That Section 139(5) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 allows taxpayers to rectify their mistakes in their original tax returns by filing a revised return. Deductions or exemptions wrongly claimed and incorrect disclosure of income can be fixed by fling this return. Ground No. 4: That there

DCIT, Central Circle-02, Delhi, Jhandewalan vs. Otsuka Chemical India Pvt. Ltd., Abhinash Mansion

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2501/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. Anup Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 270ASection 28Section 9

with the government account as soon the discrepancy came to notice. However, the return could not be revised as the time limit for filing revised return was expired.” 3 Otsuka Chemical India Pvt. Ltd. 4. The relevant part of the order of the Assessing Officer is as under ... accept that it was a bonafide mistake and held that the mistake ought to have been rectified by filing a revised return of income. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. While adjudicating the issue the Hon’ble High Court held that the excess depreciation originally claimed was on account

Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3176/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. M. G. Joseph Gangte, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

adjudication of the case are as under:  Assessment Year : 2006-07  Date of filing of original return : 14.11.2006  Date of filing of revised return : 20.03.2007  Date of passing of order u/s 143(3) : 26.11.2007  Date of intimation of audit objections to the assessee : 08.09.2008  Date of reply of the assessee

M/S. Brahmani River Pellets Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 139/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Brahmani River Pellets M/S. Brahmani River Pellets Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Limited., 4Th Floor, Ipicol Limited., 4 Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar House, House, Janapath, Janapath, Sahid Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaccb 9418 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas B.K.Mahapatra, Cas Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Sabat and B.K.Mahapatra, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

submission that the assessee had filed its original return of income for the impugned assessment year on 26.10.2018. The assessee had also filed its revised return on 11.3.2019. The return had been processed and the assessment completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 22.2.2021 by NFAC assessment

Smt. Jagdeep Kaur, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 81/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: This Hon’Ble Tribunal Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048105767(1) Dt. 20/12/2022 Which Was Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Said First Appeal Was Dismissed By The Ld. Cit(A). Therefore Assessee Is Before Us. The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. 4. In Form No. 36 The Assessee Interalia Has Take Up Following Grounds Of Appeal Against The Impugned Order Which Are Reproduced Below:

For Appellant: Smt. Supriya, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253

person - (a) fails 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) or an updated return under sub-section (8A) of that section, or (b) fails to comply with

Sh. Baljit Singh, Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT, Ludhiana -1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 416/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Kaushal &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68Section 92C

following contentions: 1) Original return of income was filed on 31/10/2017 w.r.t AY 2017-18 showing total income of Rs. 21,25,320/-. 2) Revised return of income was filed on 06/11/2017, showing total income of Rs. 19,62,660/-; thus curing the mistake committed in filing original return

Lade Madwesh, Kadapa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-(2), Kadapa

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 546/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.546/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Lade Madwesh Vs. Income Tax Officer Kadapa Ward-2 Pan:Aabhl5201M Kadapa (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Rahul Singhania, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Rahul Singhania, DR
Section 116Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 200ASection 206C

Madwesh Hon'ble Supreme Court/High Court was whether the assessee can claim a fresh claim at the appellate stage or not without filing the revised return or not. The case in hand is not related to filing of claim by revised return of income, rather it is the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -26(1), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex vs. R D Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3703/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Atui T. Suraiya, C.A and Shri T.P. Ostwal, C.A RevenueFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT, DR
Section 10(34)Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)(d)Section 13(2)(h)Section 143(3)

income) towards its objects in terms of section 11(1) of the Act out of its income earned during the year. It filed its revised return of income on 30.09.2013, claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act and reportingNil income in the return. 3.2. Details of dividend received