“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

Kavitha Harish Raney, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 506/HYD/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 506/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Kavitha Harish Raney Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 7(3) Pan:Acbpr3983L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/05/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, Jm. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1/9/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Resident Individual, Deriving Income From Business & Profession & Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 143(2)

original Return of Income the assessee has shown Rs. 28,81,694.42/- as Capital and Rs. 81.90,891/- as Trade Creditors whereas in revised Return of Income the assessee raised Capital to Rs. 30,12,244/- from Rs. 28,81,694.42/- and Trade Creditors ... whereas in the submissions the assessee offered insufficient explanation only to the tune of Rs. 38,20,690/- as discussed above. Furthermore, in the revised Return of Income as well as in Original Return of Income no TDS has been deducted by the assessee on account of the remittance made

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. P K Krishnan Educational Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3533/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer P K Krishnan Educational Trust 6Th Floor, Mtnl Building Shree Siddhi Vinayak Engl. Vs. Cumballa Hill, Pedder Road, High School, Hariyali Village Mumbai-400 026 Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400 083 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatp5026F

For Appellant: Shri Mandar Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR

Section 11Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44A

that , assessee has filed form no.10B of the Act along with original return of income on 14th March, 2022, and further along with the revised return on 29th March, 2022, the order of rectification passed on 7th March, 2023, denying exemption under Section 11 of the Act, for form no.10B ... such time limit being directory. Though, the assessee filed those form along with their original as well as revised return is in compliance with the provision of the Act . The ld CIT (A) followed decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Sarvodya Charitable Trust and other judicial

M/S. Shilp Gravures Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 339/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri S.N Divatia with Shri Samir Vora, ARsFor Respondent: Ms Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154

made in the return of income and therefore the AO has no power to entertain such request of the assessee without having filed the revised return of income in pursuance to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT reported

Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 918/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.918/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sharad Bhaskarrao The Income Tax Officer, Gaikwad, V Nashik. T No.1, Vanai Apartment, S Gangapur Road, Behind Kulswamini Apartment, Nashik – 422005. Pan: Adspg2339R Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Assessee By Revenue By Shri Sourabho Nayak – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Dated 02.05.2023 For A.Y.2018-19 Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 22.02.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A]

Section 133ASection 148Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department. The AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act. In response to notice u/s.148, assessee filed Revised Return of Income showing Net Total Income of Rs.8,26,919/- and Chapter VIA deduction of Rs.1,56,277/-. Original Return Revised Return Net Total ... Rs.8,26,919/- Chapter VI Deduction Rs.3,10,000/- Rs.1,56,277/- Claimed 2.3 Thus, during the assessment proceedings, AO noted that in the revised return of income, assessee had claimed less deduction u/s.Chapter VIA as compared to his earlier Return 3 Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A] of Income. AO initiated

Sri Sanat Kumar Das, Kolkata vs. DCIT, (I.T.), Cir. 2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 202/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 90Section 90(2)

assessee had earned Rs. 16,08,681/- from M/s. Bechtel Ltd., UK and this amount was apparently not disclosed as taxable in the revised return of income file by him. To bring things in perspective, it is seen that the assessee filed return of income ... I.T.A. No.: 202/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Sanat Kumar Das. total income at Rs. 39,22,270/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 10.11.2014 declaring total taxable income at Rs. 23,13,590/-. The Assessing Officer (in short ld. 'AO') in order

Mp State Mining Corporation, Bhopal vs. PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 203/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimp State Mining Corporation Pr. Cit-1 Paryavas Bhavan Block No.1, Bhopal Area Hills Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcm0300K Assessee By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ars Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 30.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.05.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263

Minerals. The assessee filed its return of income for year under consideration on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.192.81 crores. Thereafter the assessee filed revised return of income on 29.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs.192.54 crores. The case of the assesse was selected for scrutiny under CASS and scrutiny assessment ... assessment order where the AO has recorded all the facts of the nature of business of the assesse, filing return of income and revised return of income. Since in the revised return of income the assessee has reduced total income the case of the assesse was selected for scrutiny through

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai., Pratishtha Bhavan vs. Arun Subrahmanyam, Mumbai, Maharashtra

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

ITA 2694/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 270A

Account assessment tax of Rs.54,15,000/- vide challan dtd.31/12/2018 i.e. much before the issue of notice u/s.l42d) of the Act. Moreover, to file revised return had already expired by the time the information was received from Fund Manager. 7.3 Considering these facts, I am in agreement with the Ld.AR

Neeru Mohan Nagpal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 2(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: MS. Pallavi Khuntenta, (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

term capital gain was of Rs. 27,90,552/- in the original return of income but the same was reduced to NIL in the revised return of income. Current year losses of Rs. 10, 67,547/- were claimed in the revised return of income whereas same ... that the assessee has claimed LTCG of Rs. 27,90,552/- in the original ITR filed for the year under consideration. In the revised return filed the same was reduced to Rs. NIL. As the assessee sold two properties, out of which one property she has shown capital gain

Vasant Parasmal Mehata, Vijayapura vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Vijaypur

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

ITA 390/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri. Vasant P Mehata, Ito, Prop Of Mehata Parasmal Giridharilal, Ward – 1, Kaladagi Galli, Bijapur, Vs. Vijayapur. Vijayapura – 586 101. Pan : Acamp6257 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Preethi S. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Preethi S. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

credit purchase and cash sale of Kirana goods. The said turnover of Rs 1,53,72,769/- has been declared in revised return of income and paid due tax and percentage of gross profit declared as per original return of income.” 4. The CIT(A) noted that assessee

Thanwardas Lalchand Motwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3975/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashish A ThakurdesaiFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 54

filing his original return of income this capital gain transaction and the deduction claimed u/s 54 of the Act were reflected, however, in his revised return of income, the assessee did not offer any capital gain. Accordingly, during the assessment proceeding, the assessee was asked to explain the reason ... filing a revised return of income and the reason for the non-inclusion of sale consideration from the aforesaid transaction in the revised return of income. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that the full consideration barring Rs.1.20 cr was received by the assessee only on 26.09.2013 after which

Mr Homi R. Cooper, Mumbai Suburban vs. Assistant Commissioner on Income Tax, Circle 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2016-

ITA 3929/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80G

paid Rs.2,10,000/- towards the income-tax liability. The learned AR submitted that since the time period for filing the revised return of income had expired, the assessee could not revise his return and it is only pursuant to the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act that

Mr Homi R. Cooper, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2016-

ITA 3928/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougule

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80G

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Hindustan Td, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2218/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR

Section 14A

justified in directing the AO to verify the facts relating to exclusion of income of Rs. 7,64,80,000/- admitted in the revised return on account of provision for foreign exchange fluctuation without appreciating the fact that such an issue was never the cause of grievance emanating ... justified in directing the AO to verify the facts relating to exclusion of income of Rs. 7,64,80,000/- admitted in the revised return on account of provision for foreign exchange fluctuation without appreciating the fact that decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India

Bajaj Hindustan Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2059/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit Kamdar, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR

Section 14A

Commissioner of Income Ta, Kolkata - II vs. M/S. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corpn. L

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA/331/2008HC Calcutta01 May 2024

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 1St May 2024. Appearance: Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Smt. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant & Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Ananda Sen, Learned Counsel For The Respondent Assessee. 2.

Section 43BSection 43D

such amount not having been debited to the profit and loss account and not having been claimed by the assessee in their return or revised return? 2. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in directing deletion of addition by the Assessing Officer of a sum of Rs.1 ... plea of the assessee in this regard. The only objection which remains for consideration is as to whether in the absence of a revised return of income filed by the assessee making claim for deduction on account of interest expenses the deduction can be allowed. The reliance placed

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2, Kolkata vs. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corp. Ltd

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA/1/2018HC Calcutta01 May 2024

Section 43BSection 43D

Gurnam Arora, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 254

said decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, there have been number of decisions which had held that where assessee could not file a revised return but the claim of the assessee is legitimate , then the same could not be ignored by the authorities. Further the claim made by an assessee

R. G. Sundar & Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1600/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1599 & 1600/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. R.G. Sundar & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Erode Feeds Producers, Vs. Of Income Tax, 82, Perundurai Road, Central Circle-2, Perundurai – 638 001. Coimbatore Pan: Aaffr 3771C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate Shri Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Court held that the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty because of the fact that declaration of income made by assessee in his revised return and his explanation that he has done so to buy peace with the Department and to come out of tax litigation should be treated

R. G. Sundar & Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1599/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Swasth Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO(Exemption) Ward 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4327/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleswasth Foundation V. Ito(Exemption) Ward 2(3) 617, Cumballa Hill 615-616, Palms Ii, Royal Palms Mumbai - 400026 Estate, Aarey Milk Colony Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400065 Pan: Aaits2522B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Pritesh Mehta Department Represented By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 139Section 139(1)

assessment order is invalid and bad in law. 2. The CIT (A) has not taken note of the fact that the assesse has filed revised return of income on 01.12.2015. As such, the entire assessment order is invalid and bad in law. 3. The CIT (A) has made the assessment ... explanation to section 11(1) whereby the amount deemed to have been applied for charitable activities during F.Y.2014-2015 is Rs.2,21,56,903/- in revised return of income filed on 01.12.2015 vide Part B - TI Clause 9(iv). 7. The CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that no particular form