← 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

M/S. International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT(Ltu), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3811/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshinternational Tractors Ltd, Vs. Dcit (Ltu), Sonalika House, 282, Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Agcr Enclave, Vihar, Sector-Iii, Karkardooma, Delhi- New Delhi 110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H Dcit (Ltu) International Tractors Ltd, New Delhi Sonalika House, 282, Agcr Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80J

that they did not form part of assessee's original return and that the assessee had not made a course correction by filing a revised return. 15.1 This view was based, as noticed above, on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra

DCIT(Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. International Tractors Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3663/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshinternational Tractors Ltd, Vs. Dcit (Ltu), Sonalika House, 282, Nbcc Plaza, Pushp Agcr Enclave, Vihar, Sector-Iii, Karkardooma, Delhi- New Delhi 110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H Dcit (Ltu) International Tractors Ltd, New Delhi Sonalika House, 282, Agcr Enclave, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci2270H

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Bhutani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80J

that they did not form part of assessee's original return and that the assessee had not made a course correction by filing a revised return. 15.1 This view was based, as noticed above, on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra

Sh. Pawan Kumar, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Ahuja, Advocate and Shri Pawan Kumar, AssesseFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

Krishna Vs. ITO (supra) wherein the assessee had claimed FTC under section 90 r/w Article 24 of the India – Australia Tax Treaty in the revised returned income. However the assessee did not file Form No. 67 before filing the return of income. On realizing the same, the assessee filed Form ... subsequently and thereafter the revised returned income was processed by CPC and intimation under section 143(1) was issued disallowing the claim of FTC. In the said factual background, the Coordinate Bangalore Benches vide its order dated 17/11/2021 has held that Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide

Veetil Kizhakke Nirmal, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(6), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 8/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarun, G., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 192BSection 270A

order dated 19.2.2018, the CIT(Appeals) recorded these facts in para 5 of his order that Mr. Nagesh Shastry was instrumental in filing the revised return. However, the same facts and arguments in the penalty proceedings are not considered by the CIT(Appeals). In our opinion, it is proper

Veetil Kizhakke Nirmal, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(6), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 7/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarun, G., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 192BSection 270A

order dated 19.2.2018, the CIT(Appeals) recorded these facts in para 5 of his order that Mr. Nagesh Shastry was instrumental in filing the revised return. However, the same facts and arguments in the penalty proceedings are not considered by the CIT(Appeals). In our opinion, it is proper

M/S. Prakash Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

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

ITA 1389/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 205(1)(b)Section 234B

interest u/s 234B & 234C of the Act would not be leviable. 10. As mentioned elsewhere, original return was filed on 29.10.2007. Revised return was filed on 09.03.2009. The judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court is dated 30.11.1999 and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is dated

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -I vs. M/S Forum Sales Pvt. Ltd

The appeals stand dismissed

ITA/863/2019HC Delhi01 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 260A

person (a) fails to 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

Somenath Duttagupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 627/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.627/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Somnath Duttagupta……..………….…................…...……………....Appellant A 168, Lake Gardens, Shivam Building Flat A2, Kolkata – 700045. [Pan: Afqpd5412G] Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata…...…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Balaji V, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 01, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.04.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Is Aggrieved By The Action Of The Lower Authorities In Making/Confirming The Addition Of Salary Income Of Rs.47,26,133/- Received By The Assessee In India For The Services Rendered In Us. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Revised Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2019-20 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.191370/-.

Section 250Section 90(4)

assessee in India for the services rendered in US. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed his revised return of income for the Assessment Year under consideration i.e. A.Y 2019-20 declaring a total income of Rs.191370/-. I.T.A. No.627/Kol/2023 Assessment Year ... Salary income shown under TDS schedule of ITR is higher than the salary income shown under Part B-TI 4. Taxable income shown in revised return is less than the taxable income shown in the original return and large refund has been claimed (Non-business ITR) 5. Substantial difference

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati vs. Shri Pramod Marotrao Waylalwar, Nagpur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 102/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Pavan VedFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y Marathe, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)Section 251(1)(a)

Goetz India Vs CIT 157 Taxmann 1 (SC) in which it was held that a fresh claim cannot be admitted otherwise than by a revised return. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify

Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

facts, wherein in the original return of income the assessee had claimed benefit under Section 10B of the Act and thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee foregoing the claim of benefit of Section 10B of the Act. However, the facts of the instant case ... clearly distinguishable for the reason that in both the original return of income as well as the revised return of income, the assessee has taken a consistent stand and has claimed deduction under Section 11(2) of the Act, and further in the original return of income (which was filed

Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 343/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

facts, wherein in the original return of income the assessee had claimed benefit under Section 10B of the Act and thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee foregoing the claim of benefit of Section 10B of the Act. However, the facts of the instant case ... clearly distinguishable for the reason that in both the original return of income as well as the revised return of income, the assessee has taken a consistent stand and has claimed deduction under Section 11(2) of the Act, and further in the original return of income (which was filed

Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2 (Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 342/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

facts, wherein in the original return of income the assessee had claimed benefit under Section 10B of the Act and thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee foregoing the claim of benefit of Section 10B of the Act. However, the facts of the instant case ... clearly distinguishable for the reason that in both the original return of income as well as the revised return of income, the assessee has taken a consistent stand and has claimed deduction under Section 11(2) of the Act, and further in the original return of income (which was filed

Jt.CIT(E), Circle-2 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 335/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

facts, wherein in the original return of income the assessee had claimed benefit under Section 10B of the Act and thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee foregoing the claim of benefit of Section 10B of the Act. However, the facts of the instant case ... clearly distinguishable for the reason that in both the original return of income as well as the revised return of income, the assessee has taken a consistent stand and has claimed deduction under Section 11(2) of the Act, and further in the original return of income (which was filed

Jt.CIT(E), Circle -2 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 334/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

facts, wherein in the original return of income the assessee had claimed benefit under Section 10B of the Act and thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee foregoing the claim of benefit of Section 10B of the Act. However, the facts of the instant case ... clearly distinguishable for the reason that in both the original return of income as well as the revised return of income, the assessee has taken a consistent stand and has claimed deduction under Section 11(2) of the Act, and further in the original return of income (which was filed

Jt.CIT(Exemption)Circl-2 Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 333/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 22

facts, wherein in the original return of income the assessee had claimed benefit under Section 10B of the Act and thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee foregoing the claim of benefit of Section 10B of the Act. However, the facts of the instant case ... clearly distinguishable for the reason that in both the original return of income as well as the revised return of income, the assessee has taken a consistent stand and has claimed deduction under Section 11(2) of the Act, and further in the original return of income (which was filed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeals and the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1104/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Room No.234, 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building, Circle -2(1)(1), Bengaluru. Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 095. Pan : Aabcv 7123 P Appellant Respondent C.O.No.5/Bang/2024 (In Ita No.1104/Bang/2023) Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Circle -2(1)(1), Bengaluru – 560 095. Bengaluru. Pan : Aabcv 7123 P Cross Objector Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Prakash Hegde, Ca Respondent By : Smt. Akta Jain B, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024 O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Revenue & Cross-Objection (Co) By The Assessee Arise Out Of Cit(A)’S Order Dated 27.10.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. C.O. No.5/Bang/2024 Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash Hegde, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Akta Jain B, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

Assessment Year 2017-18, the return of income was filed on 03.11.2017 declaring loss of Rs.103,61,41,084/-. Assessee later filed revised return of income on 29.03.2019 declaring loss of Rs.131,55,85,786/-. Assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated

Nirwan Monetary Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3745/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Maheshwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Arunkumar, D.R
Section 143(3)

issues at hand are : the assessee filed its return for the years under consideration declaring its total income at nil. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return of income for the years under consideration and case was reopened by initiating the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. On the basis

Nirwan Monetary Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3744/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Maheshwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Arunkumar, D.R
Section 143(3)

issues at hand are : the assessee filed its return for the years under consideration declaring its total income at nil. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return of income for the years under consideration and case was reopened by initiating the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. On the basis

Appdynamics International Limited, Noida vs. ACIT Intl Taxation Circle 1(1)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2413/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

these decisions are that mere admission on the part of the assessee with respect to an addition/disallowance in its original return or in revised return would not ipso facto bar an assessee from claiming an expense or disputing an addition if it is otherwise permissible under law. It is thus

Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-1, Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable

ITA 1357/PUN/2023[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi () Ita Nos. 1352 To 1357/Pun/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 To 2022-23 Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni, Pr. Cit, Pune-1, G/701 Tulip Afnhb Camp Pmt Building, Swargate, Jalvvayu Vishar Phase-1, Plot-20, Vs. Pune-411037. Sec 20, Kharghar-410210. Pan No. Aanpk 7550 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Lokesh K Gandhi (ThroughFor Respondent: Mr. Mirtyunjay Barnwal (Through
Section 115VSection 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 132Section 132ASection 143Section 147Section 153ASection 153C

opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Without prejudice to Ground 1 2. Ld. PCIT erred in not Condoning the delay in filing of revised return u/s 119 (2)(b) of the Act for assessment year 2017-18 without considering that the conditions mentioned in para 6 of CBDT Circular ... returns of income for AY 2017-18 to AY 2022-23 expired. Hence, the assessee requested for condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income