← 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

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central Ludhiana vs. M/S Stelco Strips Ltd

ITA/200/2016HC Punjab & Haryana14 May 2024

Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Officer for Officer in remand report planation of the assessee is nces filed in the remand he Assessing Officer that the sessee in the revised return stification and basis and the been specifically met by the before Assessing Officer. f the revenue. The assessee, ed was filed to correct ... method of valuation of s of the assessee have been herefore, the decisions relied ble on facts of the case. The g revised return within time rong statement made in the he of ng en ile Gaurav Arora 2024.05.18 12:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this

Ganpat Manikrao Sorgikar, Pune vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi and Local Jurisdiction Assessing Officer Ward 9(4), Delhi

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

ITA 199/PUN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.199/Pun/2024 (E-Appeal) "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ganpat Manikrao Sorgikar, Vs. Nfac, Delhi/ Plot No.3B, Flat No.97, Assessing Officer, Sat Angan Appt, Cdc, Ward-9(4),Delhi Chikhali Road, Chinchwad, Pune 411 019 Maharashtra Pan : Cijps2716L Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

No.26AS as against the gross receipts of Rs.3,81,70,043/- shown in return of income. In response to notice u/s.148, the appellant filed revised Return of Income declaring income of Rs.56,95,270/- and the assessment was completed vide order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 accepting the returned income

Anand Shaktikumar Sancheti, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 340/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 115BSection 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270A

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT Appeals, NFAC, Delhi ought to have seen that the appellant has filed a valid revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act and assessment has been completed on Anand Shaktikumar Sancheti ITA no.340/Nag./2023 income as shown in the revised ... assessee has submitted that once a notice dated 14/08/2018, was received under section 143(2) of the Act, the assessee has filed a revised return of income on 22/09/2018, withdrawing his claim as dividend income. Therefore, he submitted before the Assessing Officer that it is a bona fide mistake

P. Surendran, Trivandrum vs. ACIT Circle 1(2), Trivandrum

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

ITA 978/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm P. Surendran Sukanya Bhavan Asst. Cit-1(2) Vadayakkadu, Kunnukuzhy, P.O., Thiruvananthapuram Vs. Thiruvananthapuram-695 035

For Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)Section 40a

assessee had offered additional income of Rs.1 crore in addition to the regular return income of Rs.1,11,620/- but had subsequently filed its revised return of income, declaring only Rs.1,75,34,220/- instead of Rs.2,11,06,320/-. The assessee’s case was then selected for scrutiny

Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 604/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 44ASection 80Section 801ASection 80I

filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file revised return making such claim, its claim for deduction under section 80-IA is maintainable. Therefore, where assessee had filed return under section ... section 80-IA even if such claim was not made in Arathi Vinay Patil, Bangalore Page 13 of 14 original return but subsequently in revised return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income, Cirlce 14(1)(2)Tax, Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2833/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/ revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/ revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation of revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation of revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Maharashtra and Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Maharashtra and Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2832/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2016 - 2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/ revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/ revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation of revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation of revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Maharashtra and Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Maharashtra and Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2831/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/ revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/ revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation of revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation of revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation

Gati Kintetsu Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, In the result, appeal for AY 2013-14 is allowed partly for 14 is allowed partly for statistical purposes, purposes, appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed, is partly allowed, appeal...

ITA 2830/MUM/2023[ASST YEAR 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/ revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/ revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation of revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation of revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation

Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd, Maharashtra and Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai, Maharashtra and Mumbai

ITA 2829/MUM/2023[ASS YEAR 2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 250

declaring total income at Rs.26,42,09,390/-, which was further revised on 27.11.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,83,80,650/-. In the revised return of income, the assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.31,26,46,956/- on intangible assets of Rs.125,05,87,823/- for entire assessment year

DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata vs. Itc Limited, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1223/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

normal provisions of Act and Rs. 58,83,58,39,895/- as book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee was also filed revised return of income on 30.03.2012. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act followed by rectification on 08.05.2013. The case of the assessee ... shut up for all the times to come merely because it is raised for the first time in appellate proceedings in absence of a revised return filed before the Assessing Officer. We therefore accept assessee’s instant additional ground in principle and leave it open for the Assessing Officer

DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata vs. Itc Limited, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1222/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

normal provisions of Act and Rs. 58,83,58,39,895/- as book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee was also filed revised return of income on 30.03.2012. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act followed by rectification on 08.05.2013. The case of the assessee ... shut up for all the times to come merely because it is raised for the first time in appellate proceedings in absence of a revised return filed before the Assessing Officer. We therefore accept assessee’s instant additional ground in principle and leave it open for the Assessing Officer

Itc Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range-8, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1166/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

normal provisions of Act and Rs. 58,83,58,39,895/- as book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee was also filed revised return of income on 30.03.2012. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act followed by rectification on 08.05.2013. The case of the assessee ... shut up for all the times to come merely because it is raised for the first time in appellate proceedings in absence of a revised return filed before the Assessing Officer. We therefore accept assessee’s instant additional ground in principle and leave it open for the Assessing Officer

Itc Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range-8, Kolkata

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1068/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

normal provisions of Act and Rs. 58,83,58,39,895/- as book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee was also filed revised return of income on 30.03.2012. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act followed by rectification on 08.05.2013. The case of the assessee ... shut up for all the times to come merely because it is raised for the first time in appellate proceedings in absence of a revised return filed before the Assessing Officer. We therefore accept assessee’s instant additional ground in principle and leave it open for the Assessing Officer

Rakesh Reddy Tanguturu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 229/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha, G. Hon’Ble Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2019-20 Rakesh Reddy Tanguturu, Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of 8-2-293/82/F/A/65, Income Tax, Plot No.65-A, Circle – 6(1), Road No.14, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Hyderabad, Telangana. Pan : Aaupy9817A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Aves Madhukar, Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.05.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2019-20 Arises From The Order Of Addl/Jcit (Appeals), Madurai, Dt.31.02.2024 Invoking Proceedings Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee, Who Is An Individual Having Income From Business, Other Sources & Agricultural Income. For The Year Under Appeal, In Addition To The Above Sources Of Income, The Assessee Had Also Reported Income From Capital Gains Being Gain On Redemption Of Mutual Funds. For The Previous Year Ending On 31.03.2019 Relevant To Ay 2019-20, The Original Return Of Income Was Filed Electronically On 27.09.2019 Admitting An Income Of Rs.1,35,05,760/- After Claiming Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A Of The Act. In The Original Return Of Income, The Assessee Had Also Reported Loss From Business Of Rs.40,21,673/-. The Business Loss Of Rs.40,21,673/- Was Not Set Off Against Any Other Source Of Income. Subsequently, The Return Was Revised On 21.08.2020 To Report The Revised Loss From Business To Rs.4,47,991/- From Rs.40,21,673/- . Even This Loss Of Rs.4,47,991/- Was Ignored In The Return, Meaning Thereby The Loss From Business Was Not Set Off Against Any Other Source Of Income Both In Original & Revised Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AVES Madhukar, Sr.A.R
Section 143(1)Section 39Section 90

ignored in the return, meaning thereby the loss from business was not set off against any other source of income both in original and revised return of income. 2.1. Durin the assessment year under consideration, assessee received director fees of Rs.42,67,487/-, which is equivalent to Rs.85 ... withheld in Australia was claimed as deduction from gross tax liability computed on the net adjusted total 2 income. The revised return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore vide intimation dated 22.01.2021. In the intimation, the relief

Namokar Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle -2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 762/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

natural justice went to the root of the matter. Also, the CBDT circular that permitted to the Assessee to file revised returns if he omitted to make a claim was also not noticed by the AO.” Therefore the Assessing Officer was bound to supply those statements and allow the cross

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Essar Ports Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 406/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 14ASection 4A

assessee had in its 'Original' return of income voluntarily offered a disallowance under Sec.14A of Rs.9,63,30,238/-, On the basis of a 'revised return of income the assessee had reworked out the disallowance under Sec. 14A at Rs.5,29,95,132/- However, the A.O. being of the view ... that the 'revised' return of income filed by the assessee was neither voluntary nor on account of discovery of any omission on its part, had thus declined to admit the same. Resultantly, the restriction of the disallowance under Sec. 14A at Rs.5,29,95,132/- in the 'revised return

Image Finvest & Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2015-16 Image Finvest & Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-11(4), Kolkata 200, Block-A, Bangur Avenue, Vs Kolkata-700055 Pan: Aaaci 5378 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Anil Kochar, Ar Respondent By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

time of hearing, ld. AR stated that imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not correct. He further stated that revised return of income was filed by the assessee before finalization of assessment, therefore, no penalty is leviable. On the other hand, ld. DR defended ... arises as to whether the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) could be imposed when the assessee revised its return before finalization of assessment. The revised return was regularized by the revenue and at the same time there is no loss to the revenue. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex

Manju Krishnappa, Bangalore vs. Additional Director of Income Tax Appeal, CPC Bangalore and the Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)Bangalore, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 569/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Itu Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 90

original return of income on 30 August 2019 under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Further the appellant filed revised return of income under section 139(5) on August 12, 2020. The appellant received an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated March

Moog Motion Controls Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 184/BANG/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 M/S. Moog Motion Controls Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Site No.42-43, Doraisanipalya Circle – 4(1)(1), Village, Vs. Bengaluru. Opp. Oracle (Kalyani Magnum), Bilekahalli, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aadcm 3828 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas K. P, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas K. P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 90

assessee of Rs.5,81,713/- was Page 3 of 19 disallowed which was claimed under section 90 of the Act in the revised return of income. 3. Aggrieved from the above disallowance by the CPC, assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) observed that the disallowance ... have been filed before the time limit specified u/s 139(1) of the Act. Page 4 of 19 9. A copy of the revised return of income filed by the appellant, as well as a copy of Form 67, clearly evidencing the claim of relief