“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

Sugam Informatics Society Samiti, Bhopal vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward, Bhopal

Appeal is allowed in terms mentioned above

ITA 429/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Sugam Informatics Society Ito, Exemption Ward, Samiti, Bhopal बनाम/ M-76, Kotra Sultanabad, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aadas 6270 J Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca & Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2024

Section 10Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154

such that the assessee developed a genuine understanding, though it was a mis-understanding, that the 2nd return must be filed as a “revised return”, therefore the assessee selected “revised return u/s 139(5)” option while filing return. However, the correct position would be that since the 1st return became ... invalid, the 2nd return would not be a “revised return”, it would be an original return, of course a belated return u/s 139(4). Ld. AR carried us to the provision of section 139(4) as applicable to AY Page 4 of 7 Sugam Informatics Society Samiti, Bhopal

Ajmer Industries LLP, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 760/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

concealment of particulars of income or of the inaccuracy of particulars furnished in respect of such income. Such disclosure could also be by a revised return or an application or a letter addressed to the taxing authority. Disclosure contemplated by sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) cannot have different meanings

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 759/JPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 758/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 274

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 757/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 153ASection 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 756/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

this regard it is submitted that filing of revised computation of income during the course of assessment proceedings tantamount to filing the revised return of income. The Ld Assessing Officer though observed that there is no provision for revising the return filed u/s 153A, however, it remains an undisputed fact ... offered by the appellant by way of revised computation has been accepted as such merely with the observation that there is no provision for revising return filed u/s 153A. Despite that, revised computation has not been rejected but duly accepted by the Ld Assessing Officer and assessment has been made

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 755/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Modi Rubber Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 17(1), New Delhi

In the result, Ground no.2 is partly allowed

ITA 6866/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.DR

Section 10(34)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

completion of assessment proceedings, it was not possible for the assessee to make such a claim before the Assessing Officer or file a revised return. The assessee therefore requested the Commissioner to reduce the long-term capital gains by the proportionate amount withdrawn by the company from the escrow account

ACIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad vs. Apex Dye Stuff Industries, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2035/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40

issued on 29-11-2016 which was duly served. In response to the said notice, the assessee did not file revised return of income. During the assessment proceedings, the Authorized Representative of the assessee attended the proceedings and submitted the details. After taking cognizance of the said details

Turner Morrison Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir, Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 530/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)

allowed since it did not appear in Form 26AS. Assessee submitted that credit of TDS could not be denied since filing of revised return of TDS by the deductor is not the responsibility of the assessee and it does not have any control on the TDS deductor to compel them

Mahesh Chand Singhal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-35(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3807/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69C

lumpsum of Rs. 40 lakhs for alleged long term capital gains earned from sale of shares as additional income. However, when the assessee filed revised return on 19.11.2015, he returned Rs. 20,54,688/- as income from other sources and claimed that no long term capital gain existed

Minosha India Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 16(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2129/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

assessee e-filed return of income on 30.11.2012 declaring loss at Rs. 2,82,87,881/-. Subsequently on 29.03.2013 the assessee e-filed revised return, revising loss at Rs. 2,80,62,479/-. Thereafter on 31.03.2014 the assessee e-filed another return claiming additional TDS credit ... wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that no deduction or claim can be allowed to the appellant otherwise than by a revised return. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the AO and dismiss the appeal of the appellant

Bsc C&C Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2284/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40Section 801A(4)(i)Section 80I

disallowance of deduction of Rs. 2,26,31,98,158/- under section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act claimed by the assessee in its revised return furnished on 31.03.2018. The Ld. AO has discussed this issue in para 7 and after obtaining justification for the said claim from the assessee ... explanation in support of its claim, the Ld. AO/DRP disallowed the claim of deduction of the assessee under section 80IA(4) made in its revised return against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 8.1 The Ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the issue is covered

Maharashtra Feeds P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1254/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 154Section 208Section 234ASection 234CSection 243CSection 245CSection 245DSection 245D(1)Section 245D(4)

serve a notice under section 156. Even under section 143(1B), as it stood before 1.6.1999, where an assessee furnished a revised return under section 139(5) after service of intimation, the assessee was liable to pay additional income tax in relation to adjustments made under section

Maharashtra Feeds P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Faridabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1253/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr. DR

Section 153ASection 154Section 208Section 234ASection 234CSection 243CSection 245CSection 245DSection 245D(1)Section 245D(4)

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 631/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.631/मुं/2013 (िन.व. 2008-09) Tata Motors Limited Bombay House, 24,Homi Mody Street, Hutama Chowk, Mumbai – 400001. Pan: Aaact-2727-Q ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle -2(3), Mumbai. Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate With Shri Nikhil Tiwari,Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsala Jha, Cit-Dr & Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/02/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr.Advocate with Shri Nikhil Tiwari,AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha, CIT-DR and Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr.AR

Section 116Section 143(3)Section 92C

income. The A.O rejected the claim on the ground that the amount has not been claimed in the return of income or in the revised return of income. The ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed that similar claim was made in A.Y 2006-07 and 2007-08. He fairly stated that ... Assessing Officer and learned DRP only for the reason that such deduction was not claimed either in the original or in the revised return of income. However, it is a fact on record that in the computation of income the assessee has claimed such deduction. Moreover, though, the ratio laid

Sarva Capital Llc, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle International Tax 3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2073/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Nirbhay Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B.Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 112Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270A

gain, however, claimed it as exempt in terms of Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA. Subsequently, on 13.03.2022, the assessee filed a revised return of income offering the long-term capital gain derived from sale of equity share of Veritas Finance Pvt. Ltd. under Article ... case Article 13 of India-Mauritius DTAA is applied. Thus, he submitted, the long-term capital gain wrongly offered to tax in the revised return of income is not taxable under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA. 11. Strongly relying upon the observations of the Assessing Officer

Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1524/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sh. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 92C

claim by stating that such claim cannot be entertained as it was not made either in the original return of income or through revised return of income. While doing so, they relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India ... parent company. The Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim summarily, as it was neither raised in the original return of income nor through revised return of income. Learned DRP also rejected assessee’s claim on the very same ground. 43. Before us, it is the specific case of the assessee

DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore vs. Cicon Engineers Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 973/BANG/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2024

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K. (Vice President), SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.C. Raju, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Parithivel, D.R

Section 20Section 250

allowing credit if TDS in the year of TDS made to avoid re-opening of earlier assessment or lapse of time to file the revised return. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee has submitted extract of memorandum. Here, the assessee has offered the income to tax in earlier years

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Limited, Hyderabad

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 80/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)

finding of the Assessing Officer in the AY 2010-11 which is as under: “1.5 ….. After the enquiries, the assessee filed a revised return on 31.12.2012 admitting income of rs.11,21,87,364/-. The revised total income came to Rs.255,06,22,375/-. Penalty proceedings ... view, the above said contention is also without any basis. 24.6 Firstly, for A.Y. 2010-11, as mentioned hereinabove, the assessee has filed the revised return of income and admitted additional income of Rs.11,21,87,364/-. Once the assessee had admitted the additional income in the revised return