“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

ACIT Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Essar Shipping Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2951/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm M/S Essar Shipping Limited Acit, Circle 5(1)(1) Essar House, 11, R.No.568, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Kk Marg, Mahalaxmi, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacce3707D

For Appellant: Shri Rishav Patawari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sinha, CIT DR

Section 115VSection 143Section 144CSection 28Section 43Section 92Section 92CSection 92F

Shipping Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 admitting the additional ground raised by the assessee in spite of the assessee's erroneous act of not filing revised return of income even after having ample time and raising an issue at the appeal stage? 8.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case ... circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT (A) has not erred in allowing the claim of the assessee not made through the revised return and instead made through addition ground at appeal stage? The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) be set aside

Subhagya Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, CPC Bangalore Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 858/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 858/Ahd/2023 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Subhagya Co-Operative Housing D.C.I.T, Society Limited, Vs. Cpc Bangalore B-701 Safal Pegasus, Present Near Auda Garden, Income Tax Officer, Prahladnagar, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad-380015. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aacas0740E

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Esar Coste vs CIT reported in 276 ITR 165 has held as under: 18. The position is, therefore, that, regardless of whether the revised return was filed or not, once an assessee is in a position to show that the assessee has been over-assessed under the provisions

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Ms Agarwal Foundries Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1063/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Dy.Cit Vs. M/S. M.S Agarwal Circle 16(2) Foundries (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaics4832K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) Assessee By: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, Ca Date Of Hearing: 04/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/01/2024 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.03.2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In Manufacture Of Sponge Iron. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y 2012-13 Admitting Income Of Rs.5,730/- & Also Revised Return Of Income Admitting Income Of Rs.9,760/-. Subsequently, The Case Was Converted Into Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Were Issued & Served On The Assessee To Which Page 1 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)

engaged in manufacture of sponge iron. It filed its return of income for the A.Y 2012-13 admitting income of Rs.5,730/- and also revised return of income admitting income of Rs.9,760/-. Subsequently, the case was converted into scrutiny under CASS and statutory notices

Indowind Energy Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3453/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3453/Chny/2018 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Indowind Energy Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Kothari Building, 4Th Floor, Vs. Income Tax, No.14, Mahatma Gandhiroad, Corporate Circle-2(2), Nungambakkam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1806-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ* की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ,-थ* की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.12.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 14ASection 40Section 9

observed that the assessee did not make any provision in the previous year 2010-11 in respect of the prior period expenditures. No revised return was also filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-12 incorporating these expenses in its profit and loss account upon finalization

Atul Projects India Private Limited, Andheri(E), Mumbai vs. DCIT -9(1)(2), (Now Jurisdiction With Dc CC (2) (4), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 3295/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Atul Projects India Vs. Dcit-9(1)(2) Private Limited, 5Th Floor, (Now Jurisdiction With Dc Cc(2)(4)) Room No. 802, 8 Th Floor, Trade Avenue Andheri Pratishtha Bhavan, Old East, Suren Road Chakala Cgo, Annexe, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 093 Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aagca5921P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mahaveer Jain Respondent By : Harmesh Lal Date Of Hearing 01.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.01.2024

For Appellant: Mahaveer JainFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT 157 taxman.com 1 on the ground that claim made by the assessee other than by way of return or revised return cannot be entertained by the assessing officer. 5. The assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

Royal Marwar Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 & 3 raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 3147/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Assessment Year 2014-15 4. assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was framed on the Appellant vide order, dated 27/10/2016 whereby the revised return filed by the Appellant was accepted. However, the Assessing Officer noted that the revised return declaring additional capital gains income was filed only after ... present case as the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act did not highlight the issue of capital gains income and the revised return filed by the Appellant was accepted. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the 6. Appellant had filed the revised return declaring additional

Atos India Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 14 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

ITA 1576/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleatos India Private Limited V. Acit – 14(1)(1) Unit No. 1401, 14Th Floor Rom No. 481, 4Th Floor Supremus “E" Wing Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 I Think Techno Campus Kanjurmarg (E), Mumbai - 400042 Pan: Aaaco2461J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Ms. Riddi Maru Department Represented By : Shri Vachaspati Tripathi

Section 144C(5)

which the income was first assessable; or (b) one year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under sub-section

Shri Mohan Lal Gupta, Shimla vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 119/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aditya Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54F

Asstt. Year 2009-10 as such no capital gain was shown in the return for the Assessment Year 2011-12. Copy of acknowledgment of revised return filed for the Asstt. Year 2009-10 has been obtained and placed on record. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee sold

DCIT, Circle, Yamunanagar vs. M/S Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Yamunanagar

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 326/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Due Date As Prescribed In Section 139(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Whereas The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income After The Due Date.

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80I

section 139 of the Act which provides for filing of return in the prescribed form within the stipulated time also provides for filing of revised return and rectification of defect in the return. Therefore, the requirement of filing the duly audited report along with the return cannot be treated ... Court): 222 CTR 309 (Del), claim u/s 80IB had not been made in the original return and the time period for filing of the revised return had also elapsed. The assessee preferred an application u/s 264 for condoning the delay. The Hon'ble High Court held that the delay occurred

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the

ITA 675/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

explained that the said cash represented his cash in hand as per return of income, which included his agricultural income. He also filed revised return of income for AY 2016-17 and proved availability of cash balance with him. The AO, however, did not accept the same. He took

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Navi Mumbai

ITA 674/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

DCIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the

ITA 673/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

Padmashree Dr. D.Y.Patil University, Mumbai vs. ACIT Income Tax CC-7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and all the

ITA 3266/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80G

Simran Bagga, Dubai vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation, 1(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1786/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 54

present case.” 3. Simran Bagga, is a non-resident individual residing in United Arab Emirates. For A.Y. 2020-21, the Assessee filed a revised return of income on 4 March 2021, wherein the total income of Rs. 2,11,190/- was declared after claiming deduction

Bharat Bhushan Gandhi, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-51(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2889/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad:Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bharat Bhushan Gandhi, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 5/2600, Gali No.5, Beadon Pura, Ward 51(5), Delhi-1100 05 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Shri Tarun Chanana & Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 04. 01.2024 Order This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 68

Returns Turnover Turnover Quarter-1 Rs.7,13,000/- Rs.7,13,000/- There is purchase of Rs.6,00,000/- in 01st Qtr in the revised return no purchase was there. 9 Quarter-II Rs.1796793 Rs.17,96,793/- There is no reason for revision in the 02nd Qtr. Sales and purchases ... sales were not taken in the original return Copy of the VAT return for the F.Y. 2016-17 in original as well as revised return enclosed. 9. It is observed that inspite of the assessee furnishing the cash book month-wise cash sales, purchase, month-wise stock giving opening stock

Jaipal Singh Dendsay, Karnal vs. ITO Ward-1, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 661/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Prem Rajpal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Siddharth Bhim Singh, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(10)(i)Section 143(1)Section 154

This application was dismissed by the AO who was of the opinion that a fresh claim can only be made through a revised return of income. 5. The assessee challenged the order of the AO before the CIT(A) and vehemently contended that pursuant to the decision in the case ... find any favour with the CIT(A) who was of the firm belief that the claim can only be made through a revised return of income. The CIT(A) further observed that the intimation u/s 143(1) was passed on 31.03.2012 and the assessee has moved the rectification application

Finastra International Financial Systems Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. ACIT Circle 1(3)(1) International Tax, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 915/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Suryanarayan, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 9(1)

domiciled in India. For the AY under consideration, the Assessee filed its original return of income ["Rol'] on 12 February 2021 and filed its revised return of income on 23 March 2021, declaring total income as 'Nil' and claiming a tax refund

Tahera Abida Ghori, Hyderabad vs. Duputy Commissioner of Income Tax -2, International Taxation, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 777/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148

Referring to the Paper Book filed, learned AR submitted that the assessee has filed her original return of income on 1.08.2008. The assessee filed revised return of income on 27.02.2009 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act. Despite such original return and revised return, learned Assessing Officer ... fact brought on record by the assessee hereself by not admitting the Long-Term Capital Gain in the original as well as in the revised return. She submitted that a mistake as to whether or not a return has been filed by the assessee is clerical in nature

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1248/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I

assessing officer has objected to the assessee's claim on the ground that such claim was not made by way of filing revised return. Apparently, be intends to draw strength from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Goetze India Ltd. 284 ITR 323, though ... Goetze India Ltd. (supro) that CIT(A) has power to admit additional ground claiming relief not claimed in the return and without filing revised return, even if the same results in assessed income going below the returned income. In his report dated 3.1.2014, the assessing officer has not given

Grasim Industries Limited (As A Successor to Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Ms. A. Alankrutha, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 37Section 40Section 43BSection 80I