“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

Pitamber Lal Sunderdas Rajdev, Bhopal vs. The ITO 3(3), Bhyopal

ITA 173/IND/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Dec 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Raopitamber Lal Sunderdas Rajdev Ito 3(3) Sundervan Nursery, Bhopal Bhopal Indore Road, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Adfpr 4144Q Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .12.2023

Section 148Section 54Section 54B

income on 27.02.2012 therein the capital gain from sale of agricultural land was declared. However, the original return of income was belated therefore, the revised return of income was invalid. Thereafter, the AO issued notice u/s 148 on 27.03.2017 to assess the income from escaped assessment on account of sale ... agricultural land by the assesse. In response to the notice u/s 148 the assesse filed the reply and stated that the revised return of income filed on 27.02.2012 may be treated as return filed in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee also claimed deduction

Navayuga Engineering Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 241/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

incriminating material. 30. The Revenue relied upon three decisions in support of the legal claim that the assessee cannot be permitted to file the revised return of income u/s 153A of the Act and claim the deductions which were not otherwise claimed in the regular return of income. The first ... applicable and is clearly distinguishable. Firstly, the said decision was not applicable as it has mentioned that “the time for filing the revised return has not expired.” In the present case, the original return of income was filed on 30.09.2009 and the return u/s 153A of the Act was filed

Navayuga Engineering Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 240/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

Navayuga Engineering Company Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 239/HYD/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapany, C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Mamata Choudhary

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai City

In the result, appeals of the revenue and CO’s of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2032/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 90/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2031/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit-3(4) बिधम/ M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1, World 3Rd Floor, Elegant Vs. Trade Center, Cuffe Parade, Business Park, Midc Mumbai-400005. Cross, Road B Andheri . East, Mumbai-400059. Cross Objection No. 91/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2032/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd बिधम/ Dcit-3(4) 3Rd Floor, Elegant Business 29Th Floor, Center-1, Vs. Park, Midc Cross, Road B World Trade Center, Andheri East, Mumbai- Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- 400059. 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg0569P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ajay Chandra (Dr) C.O. 90 & 91/Mum/2023 A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2010-11 Ambuja Cements Ltd सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & Respective Cross Objections (‘Co’) Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [In Short ‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 31-03-2023 For Ay 2008-09 & Ay 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (DR)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

under normal provisions of the Act and book profit u/s 115JB of the Act of Rs.23,32,39,072/-. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs.16,11,95,69,888/- under the normal provisions of Act and book profit u/s 115JB

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue and CO’s of assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2031/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (DR)

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 80I

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Chemicals and Ferro Alloys Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1996/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhacit-1(1)(1) Vs. M/S Chemical & Ferro 579, Aaykar Bhavan, Alloys Private Limited M.K. Road, 3Rd Floor, Liberty Mumbai – 400020 Building, Sir Vithaldas Thackersey Marg, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacc4508N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt

Section 143Section 143(2)

Manek Nagar, Tumsar, Maharashtra The appellant filed its return of income on 30.09.2013 declaring a loss of Rs. 4,88,71,317, thereafter a revised return was filed on 27.03.2014 declaring a loss of Rs. 7,09,22,442. The AO assessed the income of the appellant

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 6589/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(9)Section 80HSection 92C

selected for scrutiny and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the Appellant on 10/01/2005. Thereafter, the Appellant filed revised return on 31/03/2005 declaring income of INR 7,31,58,39,669/- under normal provisions of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted

Litecon Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 220/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.220/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Litecon Industries Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Surat, 1, 123, 1St Floor, Aaykar Block No.255, Navi Pardi, B/H Vs. Kamrej Sugar, Joy N Joy Road, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395002 Kamrej, Surat-394150 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcl 8007 A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 194(7)Section 263Section 40

return of income for assessment year (A.Y.) 2018-19, on 21.09.2018, declaring total income of Rs.1,17,02,490/-. Further the assessee furnished revised return of income, declaring total income at Rs.1,17,02,490/- on 14.12.2018. Subsequently, the assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny assessment, under

M/S Supreme Treon Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Cenralized Processing Centre., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2219/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 44ASection 80Section 80ASection 80I

Appeals) failed to appreciate that since the Original Return of Income was filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1), the Revised Return of Income filed under section 139(5) was a valid return. 7. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the deduction ... 18/03/2017, while the revised Form 10CCB in respect of deduction claimed under section 80-IC was filed on 14/03/2017. Accordingly, the assessee filed its revised return of income on 29/03/2017, wherein the deduction under section 80-IC of the Act was claimed

Star Television Entertainment Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1814/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)

year under consideration, the assessee filed the return of income on 30/09/2009 declaring total income at Rs.26,31,85,239/-. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 30/03/2011 declaring total income at Rs.50,30,92,046/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were duly served

Star Asia Region Fz Llc, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 1813/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)

M/S Kbl Layout, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 709/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Nischal, D.R

Section 132Section 153C

same was revised on 23.09.2011 at a total income of Rs.53,40,927/- with the observations as under:- PAN AAAAK6089J AY 2006-07 Sub: Revised Return of income 3.1 The assessee – AOP had admitted an additional income of Rs.75,00,000 before Asst. DIT (Inv) vide letter dated 8.1.2010. Subsequently ... completion of pending works in SY No.84/1, 85, 86/1-2, and 130, Avanahalli Village, Mysore Taluk. In view of this, the assessee-AOP is making revised return by declaring additional income of Rs.75,00,000/- subject to following adjustments:- 1. Income returned 16,20,956 2. Provision (as claimed in original

Ankur Nahar, Bhilwara vs. CIT/ ITO, Ward-2, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing no

ITA 174/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 174/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 32Section 36(1)Section 44A

amount of depreciation u/s 32 amount to Rs.3,69,595/- is claimed. The assessee had not filed any rectification petition and not filed any revised return before the assessing authority. But the assessee claimed that the assessee is eligible for excess depreciation amount of Rs.2,37,270/-. Aggrieved assessee filed

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Devesh Mohan Nayel, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 740/BANG/2023[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Vs. Shri. Devesh M Nayel, Circle – 2(2)(1), 301, Rennaisance Regalia 95, Main Road, 15Th Cross, Bengaluru. Malleshwaram, Malleshwaram S.O, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru – 560 003. Pan : Aespn 6617 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Veerabasavana Gowda S, Ca Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Veerabasavana Gowda S, CAFor Respondent: Shri. V. Parithivel, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

claimed FTC of Rs. 4,73,779/- u/s. 90 of the Act read with Article 24 of India Australia tax treaty ("DTAA") in a revised return of income filed on 31.8.2018. The Assessee had not filed the Page 9 of 14 Form 67 before filing the return of income ... realising the same, the Assessee filed Form 67 in support of claim of foreign tax credit on 18.04.2020. The revised return of income was processed by Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) electronically and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.05.2020 was passed disallowing the claim

Dr. Kriti Chaturbhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT 11(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2783/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ms Padmavathy Sdr.Kirtichaturbhaipatel, Vs. Acit-11(2), 901, Suhas Chs Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, Gulmohar Cross Road, M.K.Road, No.12, Juhu, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai- 400049. Pan/Gir No. : Agrpp9744P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Sneha More.ARFor Respondent: Shri P.D Chougule.Sr.DR

Section 147Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant and in law ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the revised return of income filled by the appellant for A.Y. 2009-10. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant

The United Theological College, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, (Exemptions), Ward-2, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 518/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Vargese, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Karthik, D.R

Section 11(5)Section 147Section 148Section 250

where the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that “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 of the Act, regardless of whether

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata

ITA 892/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 211Section 250

fact that the assessee voluntarily offered to tax u/s. 115JB of the act in its original return of income as well as in revised return? 3. That the department craves leave to add, alter or modify any grounds of appeal in the course of appellate proceedings.” 4. The facts

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata vs. Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata

ITA 891/KOL/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 211Section 250

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7(1), Kolka, Kolkata vs. Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata

ITA 890/KOL/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 211Section 250