“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

Young Mens Welfare Society, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 613/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.613&614/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Young Mens Welfare Society............................................................……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aaaay3175H] Vs. Adit (Cpc), Bangalore……….…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddarth Agrawal, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 21, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 19.09.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. 2. Earlier The Appeals Of The Assessee Were Decided Vide Order Dated 01.05.2023. However, Some Mistakes Apparent On Record Was Noting Down & Facts Were Brought To Our Knowledge Vide Ma Nos.45&46/Kol/2023. The Said M.As Were Decided Vide Order Dated

Section 154Section 250

direction to examine the contentions raised by the assessee and tax the assessee at the rates as applicable to the assessee considering the revised return filed by the assessee. 6. Since the facts and issues involved are identical in both the appeals, therefore, in view of our findings given above

JCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Hewlett - Packard India Sales Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 593/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Hp India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As The Joint Hewlett-Packard India Commissioner Sales Pvt. Ltd.), Of Income Tax, 24, Salarpuria Arena, Ltu, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. Vs. Adugodi, Bangalore – 560 030. Pan: Aaacc9862F Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2009-10 (By Revenue) : Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Saravanan B, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Saravanan B, CIT-DR

Section 145(1)Section 40

also rendering services of the same. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the act was issued. Subsequently, revised return was filed by assessee declaring total income of Rs.428,58,75,420/-. In response to the statutory notices issued, the representative of assessee appeared before

Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and appeal filed by the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 579/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

For Respondent: Shri Saravanan B, CIT-DR

Section 145(1)Section 40

Juniper Networks International B.V, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 889/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 889/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Juniper Networks बिधम/ Dcit (It) Circle-3(1)(1) International B.V., Mumbai Room No.1605, Vs. C/O Asmita Dsouza, Dhruva 16Th Floor, Air India Advisors Llp, 1101, One Building, Nariman Point, World Center, 11Th Floor, Mumbai-400021. Tower 2B, 841 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcj0974G (अपीलार्थी /Assessee) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sandeep Bhalla/Prachi Mehta/Asmita Dsouza/Bhavesh Jindal Revenue By: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/11/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Dated 31.01.2023 Passed U/S 143(3)/263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) After Giving Effect To The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Direction U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Bhalla/PrachiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 263Section 4

revised the same on 30.03.2016 and claimed refund of Rs.8,16,40,560/-. The AO passed the original assessment order on 30.06.2017 accepting the revised return of income filed by the assessee. Subsequently, the Ld. CIT(IT)-3, Mumbai issued show cause notice to the assessee intimating his desire

Afcons Sibmost Joint Vent Venture, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3168/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala & M.M

Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 199

income the assessee claimed a refund of Rs. 2,97,26,630/- towards tax deduced by the client. The assessee subsequently filed a revised return on 15.01.2018 declaring a total income of Rs.16,19,690. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act determining the refund ... Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the AO accepted the income returned by the assessee in the revised return but the AO thereby did not grant credit for TDS of Rs.2,76,47,272/- which the client has deducted on the mobilization advance extended to the assessee

Srf Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

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

ITA 6252/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Srf Limited, Vs Acit, The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Unit No.236 & 237, Second Floor, New Delhi. Mayur Place, Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I Extn., Delhi-110091. Pan-Aaacs0206P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Ca, Shri R.K.Kapoor, Adv. & Shri Harish Dhamija, Adv. Respondent By Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 26.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.11.2023 Order

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

amounting to 29,51,16,052/- on the ground that such deduction has not been claimed by the appellant in its original or revised return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that being an appellate authority, he should have adjudicated the claim of the appellant raised before

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat vs. M/S Aalidhar Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 226/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 80G

details of expenses incurred for earning exempt income nor has made disallowance under Sec.14A of the Act in original return or in the revised return of income and it has only submitted a revised computation of income showing a disallowance of Rs.4,59,140/- only as against the total exempted ... case. Further, the assessee has not given bifurcation of expenditure and that there is no disallowance either in original return of income or in revised return of income, so disallowance under section 14A of suo moto disallowance is not acceptable. The assessee simply revised the computation of income wherein section

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Surat vs. Aalidhaara Textool Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 288/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 80G

ACIT, Circle-8(2), New Delhi vs. Ecocat India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8521/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Raghvan, Adv.; &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 35Section 37(1)Section 6Section 68

fresh claim u/s 35(1). 6 I.T.A. No. 8521/Del/2019 5. Since, the assessee has made fresh claim vide letter dated 22.01.2016, no revised return was f i led and approval from DSIR was not received, therefore, the AO has disal lowed the claim of deduction

Pragati Power Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Special Range-7, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/DEL/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2005-06 Pragati Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Himadari, Rajghat Power House Circle-10(1) Office Complex, Rajghat New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 002 Pan Aaccp8035F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)

return on 31.10.2005 declaring income of Rs. 13,70,69,307/- which was subsequently revised to Rs. 16,43,97,948/- by filing revised return which was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 23.05.2006. Its case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Statutory notices under section ... that penalty has been levied even in respect of those adjustments to book profits which were made by the assessee suo-moto in the revised return accepted 2 by the Ld. AO including the adjustment of Rs. 5,59,339/- being provision for ex-gratia leave salary gratuity deleted

Virasat Ullah, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 28(3), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1761/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Shahbaj Akhtar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 144

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) 5[or an updated return under sub-section (8A)] of that section, or (b) fails to comply

DCIT Circle-1(1) Exemption, New Delhi vs. India International Centre, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1872/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohare, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860 and is strictly governed by its Memorandum of Association and Rules & Regulations. The assessee filed revised return on 03.10.2018 for the Asst Year 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs Nil after claiming exemption

DCIT Circle-1(1) Exemption, New Delhi vs. India International Centre, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1871/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohare, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

Mr Ganesh Rambhav Pakhe, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1097/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune14 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1097/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 54F

belated return u/s 139(4) of the 2 Ganesh Rambhau Pakhe Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called `the Act’). Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return on 11-02-2016 declaring total income at Rs.95,21,060/-. In this return, the assessee declared long term capital gain and also claimed ... Deduction claimed under the head Capital gains”. He directed the AO to start the computation of income by adopting the income offered in the revised return at Rs.95,21,060/-. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant

Vasulu Mittapalli, Nalgonda vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward 1, Nalgonda

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

ITA 504/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Vasulu Mittapalli, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Nalgonda. Ward – 1, Nalgonda. Pan : Bokpm3451G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A Sai Prasad, Ca, Appeared For Sri M.V. Anil Kumar, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. P. Sumitha, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 14/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/11/2023

For Appellant: Sri K.A Sai Prasad, CA, appeared for Sri M.V. Anil Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. P. Sumitha, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

agricultural income. 6. On the other hand, ld. DR has opposed the contentions of the assessee stating that assessee has not filed the revised return of income and therefore, he cannot be benefitted with this argument at this stage. 7. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material ... benefit of the fresh claim made in proceedings before the ld.CIT(A). What the assessee can do directly, he cannot do indirectly. As revised return of income was not filed in the present case, I am of the opinion that the contention of the ld. DR is sustainable

M/S. Power Point, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 634/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Harishchandra Naik M., D.R

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 37

year 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. With these narrative facts, the improvement cost claimed by the Appellant firm is genuine in the revised return filed on 03-03-2020. 4.8 The relevant part of the submissions dated 19-05-2023 are reproduced as under: Now, herewith ... Advocate fee paid Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque No.352998 dated 14- 012001. Herewith enclosed bank statement as Annexure — 3. 3. In the revised return of income, the Appellant firm claimed the expenditure for the construction of the shed of Rs.1,99,50,000 during the year

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and appeal of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4334/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2023AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajakumar, Adv

Section 10Section 10(29)Section 10(33)Section 11Section 115JSection 2

Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that the decision ... limited to the power of the assessing authority to entertain claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return, and did not impinge on the power of the Tribunal." 25. It emerges from the above that CIT (A) can adjudicate on the issue. This contention is further strengthened

Central Warehousing Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and appeal of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4190/DEL/2011[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2023AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajakumar, Adv

Section 10Section 10(29)Section 10(33)Section 11Section 115JSection 2

Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4867/MUM/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalstandard Chartered Bank Taxation Department, 23-25, M. G. Road, 3Rd Floor, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcs4681D ..... Appellant Vs. Ddit (Intl. Tax)-2(1) Scindia House, Ballard Estate, N. M. Marg, Mumbai-400 038 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant, Ld. DR

Section 14ASection 250Section 40

disallowing the claim of the appellant towards Head Office Expenditure of Rs. 77,08,83,765/- in entirety on the ground that no revised return of Income was filed for such claim and thus, restricted the claim under section 44C of the Act. 8.2 The CIT (A) failed to appreciate ... wherein it is held that the Assessing Officer has no power to entertain a claim made otherwise than by filing a revised return of income. 3. Without prejudice to grounds above, on the facts of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in allowing additional claim

DCIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Zensar Technologies Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8389/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.8389/मुं/2010 (िन.व. 2005-06) Dcit-2(3), Room No.555, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Zensar Technologies Ltd., Magnet House, 2Nd Floor, N.M.Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacz 0742 K ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit - Dr "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT - DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate

Section 10ASection 244ASection 92C

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in giving relief of Rs. 86,71,275/- to the assessee based on revised return without appreciating the facts that revised return was time barred. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case