“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

Birla Integrated Textile Park Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-3(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1351/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Ghia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, D.R

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

amounting to Rs.9,30,41,469/- (after indexation). It is also not in dispute that before passing the assessment order assessee company has filed revised return relinquishing its claim of capital loss by claiming that due to typographical error at the time of filing the original return the amount ... loss making company. It is also further contended by Ld. A.R. for the assessee that before passing the assessment order the assessee company filed revised return of income by rectifying the error as to claiming the amount in question as capital loss which has been accepted and relied upon

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4305/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl Counsel

Section 10Section 10(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto. 5. Undisputedly the assessee in its revised return claimed an amount of Rs.5,20,11,22,766/- as exempt under section 10(23G) of the Act for various components of income detailed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota, Dainik Navjyoti Building, Rawatbhata Road vs. Kota Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd, Rawatbhata Road, Kota

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

Section 80P in both cases demand will be nil. Moreover the AO assessed income considering the original return of income whereas the appellant filed revised return of income.” 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R supported the order of the A.O. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused ... para 4.2.1 as under : “ 4.2.1 In this ground, the main contention of the appellant is that the learned AO has not considered the revised return of income filed while determining the taxable income in the impugned order. It is seen that the appellant has filed a revised return

Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal, Jhalawar vs. JCIT, Range-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 572/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

statutory provision. In this case, the initial return qua the assessment year in issue i.e., AY 2007-08 was filed on 31st March, 2007, revised return was filed on 31st March, 2009 and scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) was framed on 28th Oct., 2011. Show-cause notice

Ttk Healthcare Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 713/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

give the effect to the CBDT order u/s.119(2)(b) granting the condonation of delay in filing the revised return by the amalgamated company. Therefore the AO while giving the effect to the to the CBDT order u/s 119(2)(b) computed the income taking into account all the orders ... were pending to dispose it off as infructuous as the assessment orders are no longer ITA Nos.712 & 713/CHNY/2023 :- 4 -: valid in view of the revised return after amalgamation. Further, ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted events in chronology order. Assessment Assessment year year 2016-2017 2017-2018 1 Return

Ttk Healthcare Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 712/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

Vodafone India Services Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2241/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2241/Ahd/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vodafone India Services बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle- Pvt. Ltd. 4(1)(2) Vs. Indiabulls Finance Centre, B Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room 1201, 12Th Floor, Tower-1, No.209, Pratyaksh Kar Senapati Bapat Road, Bhavan, Near Elphinstone (West), Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Mumbai-400013. Ahmedabad-380015. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacz1849D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv) Revenue By: Letter Dated 11.10.2023 सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad Dated 31.08.2018, Arising Out Of The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/144C(13) Dated 05.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. In The Several Grounds Raised In The Appeal, The Sole Grievance Of The Appellant Is Against The Action Of The Ao/Ld. Cit(A) In Not Allowing The Depreciation Claimed On Goodwill.

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte Sethna (Adv)For Respondent: Letter dated 11.10.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(15)(b)Section 92C

depreciation on goodwill was not claimed in the return of income and therefore no such claim can be made other than by filing revised return of income. For this, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India

The DCIT, (Intl. Taxn.), Rajkot vs. M/S. Korea South East Power Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 132/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit (Intl. Taxn.) M/S.Korea South East Power Amruta Estate Co.Ltd. Room No.312 Mg Road बनाम/ C/O. P.V. Page & Co., Girnar Cinema 201, Sardar Griha, 198 L.T. Marg Vs. Rajkot Mumbai – 400 002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Pan : Ahvps 3555Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

Section 115ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44B

income declaring income of Rs.3,56,86,403/-. Subsequently, this return was revised declaring the same income and thereafter the assessee again filed revised return of income declaring income of Rs.44,31,125/- u/s.44BBB of the Act, which provides for DCIT (Intl.Taxn.) vs. M/s.Korea South East Power Co.Ltd ... finding itself eligible u/s 44BBB of the Act, had returned 10% of its gross receipts, amounting to Rs.44,31,125/-, for taxation in the revised return filed. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer inquired into the veracity of assessee’s claim of income returned u/s.44BBB of the Act and found

Shri Babubhai Naranbhai Sakhiya, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45(3)Section 54B

Assessment Year 2011-12, assessee filed his Return of Income declaring total income of Rs. 2,70,24,780/- on 28.09.2011 and then filed Revised Return declaring total income of Rs. 2,66,58,590/- on 08.02.2012. The return was taken up for scrutiny assessment and completed the assessment accepting

Dlf Home Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle - 7(2), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1495/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT- DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 147Section 148

Home Developers Private Limited for the A.Y 2011-12 The assessee had filed its original E-Return of income on 28.09.2011 and subsequently filed revised return on 02.04.2012 declaring a loss of Rs 3,54,54,299/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Raipur

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

ITA 3/RPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2 & 3/Rpr/2023 Co Nos. 19 & 20/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

provisions was disclosed by the assessee company at Rs.26.90 crore (approx.), Page 41-42 of APB. Thereafter, the assessee company came up with a revised return of income on 26.03.2018, wherein the income returned was disclosed at Rs. Nil [after setting off an unabsorbed loss of Rs.93.48 crore (approx ... book profit” u/s. 115JB of the Act as per the MAT provisions was disclosed in the revised return of income at Rs.26.89 crore (approx.), Page 43-44 of APB. CO Nos. 19 & 20/RPR/2023 4. The A.O. framed the original assessment vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 14.12.2019, wherein

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd., Raipur

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

ITA 2/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

Ramkrishna Hari Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd, Kandivali West vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(4) (Old) ITO Ward 41(3)(3)(New), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex

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

ITA 3135/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleramkrishna Hari Sahakari Patpedhi Ltd V. Ito – Ward – 30(1)(4) [Old] Shop No. 47, H Wing, Gokul Nagari No. 2 Ito – 41(3)(3) [New] Dattani Park, Kandivali (E) Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai - 400101 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aabar1678P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 40Section 80P(2)(a)

before the Ld. CIT(A) and before Ld. CIT(A), assessee has filed detailed submissions and also made a plea that assessee has filed revised return of income. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) found discrepancies in the revised return of income filed, in particular ... account of non- compliance with the provisions of Chapter XVII- B of Rs. 25,54,352/- . In reply to said notice we filed our revised return making the said addition and enhancing our Deduction U/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) to Rs.29,55,916/- 3) The Revised return was rejected

United Phosporus Ltd ( Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8387/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

expenses – Export Rs. 47,62,000/- Training & Seminar Expenses Rs. 11,49,722/- 7. It is observed from the details filed along with the revised return and during the assessment, the assessee has incurred expenditure on Freight attributable to the transport of goods beyond customs station ... summarized by the Assessing Officer and the conclusion reached are reproduced below: - ITA.NO. 3251/MUM/2009 2516/MUM/2010 8375 & 8387/MUM/2011 United Phosphorous Ltd “10. In the Revised return filed u/s 148 of IT Act, 1961, assessee has claimed deduction under 80 HHC for 10,51,33,289/-. The matter relating to 80HHC stands

United Phosphorus Ltd ( Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8375/MUM/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

United Phosphorus Ltd ( Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2516/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

United Phosphorus Ltd (Know Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3251/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80H

Deepak Nagori, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1713/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Shri Deepak Nagori Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 8(3) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abspn3300M Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-2, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “1. That The Appellant Is An Individual & Filed His Income Tax Return (Tr) For Fy 2011-12 By Declaring Income Of Rs.5,82,686/-. The Itr Includes Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.23,08,721/- & Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Of It Act 1961. Notices Issued Under Section 148 & Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. Ao Passed The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T Act, 1961 & The Same Was Upheld By Ld. Cit(A).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69

beneficiaries who had taken entries of nearly Rs.40 crores have voluntarily surrendered it for taxation without any further enquiry. v. Several assessees have filed revised return due the enquiry and have taken back their claim of exemption. 8. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee purchased 1200 shares

Maquet Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6524/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 115O(4)Section 234DSection 250Section 41(1)

filed the return of income for AY 2012-13 on 29.11.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 13,97,15,020/-. The assessee filed a revised return in order to revise the claim of TDS on 26.03.2014. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maquet Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5789/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 115O(4)Section 234DSection 250Section 41(1)