← All Phrases

“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
89
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
84
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
76
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

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

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3458/MUM/2009[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 2000-01

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 40Section 44C

holding the claim of the appellant for allowing Head Office Expenditure of Rs. 23,28,71,503/- in entirety on the ground that no revise return was filed for such claim and has restricted the claim under section 44C of the Act. 10.2 The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that ... 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. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing relief of Rs.5

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl Ciat 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 120/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 43BSection 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Aurangabad vs. Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2193/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshaliacit, Circle-3, Vs Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, Aurangabad A-2, N-2, Cidco, Aurangabad. Pan: Avips 4177 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Kurkunde,Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/11/2023 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals]-2, Aurangabad (For Short, „Cit(A)‟), Dated 03.07.2017 For A.Y.2014-15 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 69,04,126/- Made U/Sec. 56 Of The Act Which Was Based On Disallowance Of Exemption Claimed U/Sec. 10(38) Of Rs. 69,04,126/- 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of The Cit(A) May Be Vacated & The Order Of The Ao May Be Restored. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Kurkunde,DR
Section 10(38)Section 112Section 56

ADIT, Aurangabad, due to misguidance by the tax consultant of the assessee and strenuous circumstances and misconception of mind, the assessee in the revised return filed, had withdrawn the claim of exemption u/sec. 10(38) of the Act and had paid taxes thereon under the provisions ... u/sec. 10(38), but because of misguidance of his tax consultant and also because of strenuous circumstances he had withdrawn such exemption in the revised return filed and had offered Rs. 67,58,422/- for the purpose of 3 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap taxation. The assessee had filed an affidavit before

Athaang Devanhalli Tollway Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2085/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Adv. Tejveer Singh and Shri NikkyFor Respondent: Shri CH V. Gopinath, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

Rs.51,24,280/- under the normal provisions and book profit at Rs.54,50,858/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Thereafter the assessee filed revised return on 4.12.2012 and again on 29.03.2014 admitting Rs.14,22,628/- under normal provisions and book profit u/s 115JB was admitted at Rs.8 ... assessee to which the A.R of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and furnished the requisite information called for. 4. In the revised return filed by the assessee on 29.03.2014, the assessee claimed the toll collection of Rs.4,09,06,108/- as exempt income and reflected an amount

Athaang Devanhalli Tollway Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2084/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Adv. Tejveer Singh and Shri NikkyFor Respondent: Shri CH V. Gopinath, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

Rs.51,24,280/- under the normal provisions and book profit at Rs.54,50,858/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Thereafter the assessee filed revised return on 4.12.2012 and again on 29.03.2014 admitting Rs.14,22,628/- under normal provisions and book profit u/s 115JB was admitted at Rs.8 ... assessee to which the A.R of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and furnished the requisite information called for. 4. In the revised return filed by the assessee on 29.03.2014, the assessee claimed the toll collection of Rs.4,09,06,108/- as exempt income and reflected an amount

Athaang Devanhalli Tollway Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2083/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Adv. Tejveer Singh and Shri NikkyFor Respondent: Shri CH V. Gopinath, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

Rs.51,24,280/- under the normal provisions and book profit at Rs.54,50,858/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Thereafter the assessee filed revised return on 4.12.2012 and again on 29.03.2014 admitting Rs.14,22,628/- under normal provisions and book profit u/s 115JB was admitted at Rs.8 ... assessee to which the A.R of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and furnished the requisite information called for. 4. In the revised return filed by the assessee on 29.03.2014, the assessee claimed the toll collection of Rs.4,09,06,108/- as exempt income and reflected an amount

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. M/S Athaang Devanhalli Tollway Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1982/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Adv. Tejveer Singh and Shri NikkyFor Respondent: Shri CH V. Gopinath, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

Rs.51,24,280/- under the normal provisions and book profit at Rs.54,50,858/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Thereafter the assessee filed revised return on 4.12.2012 and again on 29.03.2014 admitting Rs.14,22,628/- under normal provisions and book profit u/s 115JB was admitted at Rs.8 ... assessee to which the A.R of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and furnished the requisite information called for. 4. In the revised return filed by the assessee on 29.03.2014, the assessee claimed the toll collection of Rs.4,09,06,108/- as exempt income and reflected an amount

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. M/S Athaang Devanhalli Tollway Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1981/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Adv. Tejveer Singh and Shri NikkyFor Respondent: Shri CH V. Gopinath, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

Rs.51,24,280/- under the normal provisions and book profit at Rs.54,50,858/- u/s 115JB of the Act. Thereafter the assessee filed revised return on 4.12.2012 and again on 29.03.2014 admitting Rs.14,22,628/- under normal provisions and book profit u/s 115JB was admitted at Rs.8 ... assessee to which the A.R of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and furnished the requisite information called for. 4. In the revised return filed by the assessee on 29.03.2014, the assessee claimed the toll collection of Rs.4,09,06,108/- as exempt income and reflected an amount

Shri Om Prakash Jaiswal, Prop. M/S. Jaiswal Trading Company, Gorakhpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Gorakhpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 63/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi09 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

respectively. Accordingly it was submitted that the net deposit made by way of cash Rs. 64.49 lakhs only. The assessee filed revised return of income, wherein it declared profit under section 44AD of the Act @ 8% and also offered interest income and other income credited to the SBI account ... bank account, i.e., it was not recorded in the books of account. He submitted that the assessee has accepted his omission and accordingly filed revised return of income declaring profit from Cattle business @ 8%. Accordingly, he submitted that the profit of 8% declared by the assessee on the deposit amounts

Om Prakash Jaiswal, Gorakhpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Gorakhpur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 216/ALLD/2018[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi09 Nov 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

respectively. Accordingly it was submitted that the net deposit made by way of cash Rs. 64.49 lakhs only. The assessee filed revised return of income, wherein it declared profit under section 44AD of the Act @ 8% and also offered interest income and other income credited to the SBI account ... bank account, i.e., it was not recorded in the books of account. He submitted that the assessee has accepted his omission and accordingly filed revised return of income declaring profit from Cattle business @ 8%. Accordingly, he submitted that the profit of 8% declared by the assessee on the deposit amounts

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG (1), Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4248/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

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

Section 10(15)Section 115JSection 234BSection 41(4)Section 88ESection 90

return of income for AY 2007-08 on 31.10.2007 declaring the total income of Rs.30,91,68,39,720/-. The assessee later filed a revised return of income on 14.11.2007 declaring the total income of Rs.30,91,68,39,714 which was once again revised on 28.03.2009 declaring the total ... with similar directions. 11 ITAs 4248 & 4158/Mum/2014 ICICI Bank Ltd DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS LOSS CLAIMED ON RE-POSSESSED ASSETS 20. The assessee, in the revised return of income, claimed a loss of Rs.178,09,16,700/- towards loss of re-possessed assets and the same was claimed as the business

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

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 4158/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

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

Section 10(15)Section 115JSection 234BSection 41(4)Section 88ESection 90

return of income for AY 2007-08 on 31.10.2007 declaring the total income of Rs.30,91,68,39,720/-. The assessee later filed a revised return of income on 14.11.2007 declaring the total income of Rs.30,91,68,39,714 which was once again revised on 28.03.2009 declaring the total ... with similar directions. 11 ITAs 4248 & 4158/Mum/2014 ICICI Bank Ltd DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS LOSS CLAIMED ON RE-POSSESSED ASSETS 20. The assessee, in the revised return of income, claimed a loss of Rs.178,09,16,700/- towards loss of re-possessed assets and the same was claimed as the business

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle, Madurai, Income Tax Department vs. Ramco Systems Limited, Rajapalayam

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

ITA 820/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.820/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Ramco Systems Limited, Income Tax, 47, Psk Nagar, Corporate Circle, Madurai 625 002. Rajapalayam 626 108. [Pan:Aabcr2076B] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit : ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri J. Prabhakar, F.C.A. & : Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 18.10.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 26.05.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A), Nfac Is Opposed To Law On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Referred To The Decision Of The Division Bench Of The Itat Bangalore In The Case Of 42 Hertz Software Pvt. Ltd., Ita No. 29/Bang/2021 Dated 7/3/2022, Wherein The Itat Allowed The 2

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 90Section 92C

filed Form-67 electronically as per CPC 2.0 and ITBA and the assessee has not claimed the credit u/s 90/90A in the original and revised return of income and claimed the credit u/s 90/90A in the course of scrutiny proceedings only. The learned CIT(A) has not considered the fact ... filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 on 30.11.2016 admitting current year loss of ₹.5,48,443/- and revised return of income on 29.03.2018 admitting income of ₹ NIL. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and notice under section

Shri Himanshu Manoranjan Bhatt, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Dept. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 2550/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Shirish ShahFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Choughule
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54

plea of the assessee that the working of the said long-term capital gains and the exemption thereof are disclosed in the revised return of income, however, the Revenue did not grant any benefit of exemption claimed under section 54 of the Act and proceeded to made an addition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Limited (Formerly Known As Lodha Developers Pvt Ltd) (Successoer of M/S Bellissimo Crown Buildmart Pvt Ltd ), Mumbai

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

ITA 2383/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 115JSection 14ASection 92C

Developers Ltd Rs.21,37,37,597/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the notices were duly served on the assessee. The revised return is filed due to the merger of M/s Suryakripa Constructions Ltd with effect from 01.04.2015 vide order dated 24.04.2017 of the National Company

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Macrotech Developers Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly should be allowed as a deduction

ITA 2382/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

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

Section 115JSection 14ASection 92C

Developers Ltd Rs.21,37,37,597/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the notices were duly served on the assessee. The revised return is filed due to the merger of M/s Suryakripa Constructions Ltd with effect from 01.04.2015 vide order dated 24.04.2017 of the National Company

M/S. Ideb Projects Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 529/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.H. Naik, D.R
Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(iii)

Page 8 of 9 revised computation without claiming the same in the original return of income. According to him, unless there is a valid revised return, loss cannot be determined, carried forward and set off. If the return of loss is not filed within time provided ... time provided u/s 139(1) or 139(3) of the Act r.w.s. 80 of the Act, the claim of the assessee towards loss in revised return to be allowed by ld. AO. In the present case, there was no revised return. As such, ld. AO cannot consider the additional loss

The Saturday Club Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 2491/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(20 was issued and served upon the assessee on 05.09.2013. Meanwhile assessee e-filed the revised return of income showing total income of Rs. NIL. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under

The Saturday Club Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 2377/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(20 was issued and served upon the assessee on 05.09.2013. Meanwhile assessee e-filed the revised return of income showing total income of Rs. NIL. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under

DCIT, Circle-8, Kolkata vs. M/S. the Saturday Club Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue for A

ITA 1340/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

scrutiny through CASS and notice under section 143(20 was issued and served upon the assessee on 05.09.2013. Meanwhile assessee e-filed the revised return of income showing total income of Rs. NIL. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) and questionnaire under