“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

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle1(1), Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 159/CHNY/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.159/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Acit Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1(1), बनाम/ New No.165, Old No.110, Chennai. Vs. Menon Eternity Building, 6Th Floor, St. Mary’S Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacd-3312-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri N.V.Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S.Senthil Kumaran (Cit) -Ld. Dr Date Of Final Hearing : 01-11-2023 : 06-11-2023 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Balaji (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Senthil Kumaran (CIT) -Ld. DR

Section 115J

assessee did not raise this issue during original assessment proceedings. The said claim could not be entertained except by filing belated return or revised return. Further, forex loss / gains arising out of actual settlement /cancellation of forward contracts entered into with reference to exports / receivables have already been allowed

Tuv India Pvt Ltd Employees Group Superannation Scheme, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore

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

ITA 1365/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaltuv India Pvt. Ltd Employees Group Superannuation Scheme, M/S. Kalyaniwall & Mistry Llp, Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aaatt9836D ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Cpc Bengaluru ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule Ld. DR

Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(iii)Section 139Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 3

recognition letter, assessee is filing its return of income u/s. 139 of the Act. Assessee filed its return of income on 05.03.2019 (Revised Return, Original Return was filed on 23.08.2018) declared total income at Rs. 1,02,69,190/- which is actually exempt u/s. 3 TUV India Pvt. Ltd Employees ... dated 23.08.2018 (vide page no. 70 to 126 of the paper book), but this mistake by the assessee has been rectified by filing a revised return dated 05.03.2019 in which assessee comply with the appropriate column i.e. Schedule E1 (vide page no. 127 to 183 of the paper book

Bsc C&C Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-61(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2283/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 801A(4)(i)Section 80I

under section 115JC of the Act. Its case was picked up for complete scrutiny through CASS. The assessee filed a revised return on 31.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs. NIL and deemed total income of Rs. 24,68,56,389/- under section 115JC of the Act. Statutory notice(s) along ... deduction of Rs. 2,26,31,98,158/- under section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act claimed by the assessee 5 in its revised return furnished on 31.03.2018. The Ld. AO has discussed this issue in para 7 and after obtaining justification for the said claim from the assessee recorded

Sumit Sinha, Thane vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 2578/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 90

claiming Foreign tax credit of Rs.6,45,866/-. Since there was short claim of Foreign tax credit, the assessee filed revised return of income on 20-07-2020. Accordingly, a Revised Form No.67 was filed on 17-06-2020 claiming Foreign tax credit of Rs.9,15,589/-. He submitted that ... time limit for filing revised return of income for AY 2019-20 was extended by CBDT upto 30th November, 2020 by CBDT, vide its order dated 30th September, 2020. Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that both the original return of income and revised return of income were filed within

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 104/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

PCIT 91 TAXMANN.COM 199 Date of order 08.01.20181: wherein held as under: When assessment order itself is null and void based on non-est revised return, the Ld. CIT could not have exercise jurisdiction under section 263 of the I. T. Act. D. CIT vs Gitsons Enqineerinq

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 103/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 102/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 101/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R

Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

Mr Anil Govind Wable, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Ahmednagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 788/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 788/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Anil Govind Wable 6106, Sarjepura, Ahmednagar – 414 001 Pan: Aabpw5018K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनामम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, Ahmednagar. . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By: Mr Prasad Bhandari & Ravindra Darekar Revenue By: Mr Ramnath P Murkunde सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 27/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/11/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune Dt. 12/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 12/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) By Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle, Ahmednagar [For Short ‘Ao’] For Assessment Year 2017-18 [For Short ‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Prasad Bhandari & Ravindra DarekarFor Respondent: Mr Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

incorporated. The assessee also paid self-assessment taxes of ₹24,05,600/- on such additional income. However, the assessee did not file any revised return. While completing the assessment, the Ld. AO held that such additional income of ₹94,25,200/- being out of books is taxable

Mr. Sujeev Sanjeev Kharwadkar, Maharashtra vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-31(3), Bandra Kurla Complex

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 2478/MUM/2023[AY 2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)

Centre, Delhi and it relates to A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in rejecting the revised return of income filed by the assessee and consequently not granting the deduction of interest payable on housing loan as claimed by the assessee ... meaning thereby, it was filed under section 139(4) of the Act as belated return of income. 3. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 17.1.2014, wherein the assessee declared rental income and interest income, which were omitted to be declared in the original return of income

JCIT (OSD) Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Iss Sdb Security Services Pvt Ltd, Chennai

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

ITA 610/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.610/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Iss Db Security Services Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Bascon Futura Sv, 10/1, Income Tax (Osd), Corporate Circle 1(1), Venkatnarayana Road, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aaact3628C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mahir Chitalia, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023 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 11.01.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 34 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Revenue Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay, To Which; The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any 2

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CITFor Respondent: Shri Mahir Chitalia, CA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 29.11.2013 admitting an income of ₹.35,83,71,010/- and subsequently filed its revised return of income on 04.08.2014 admitting an income of ₹.27,75,71,595/-. The return was taken up for scrutiny under CASS and notice under section

Nainital District Co-Operative Bank, Haldwani vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Haldwani

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

ITA 77/DDN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148

status of Co-Operative Society by declaring income of Rs. 7,05,06,267/-. The assessee filed a revised return on 25.01.2013 declaring income of Rs. 7,41,46,270/-. In the original return, the assessee had claimed an income of Rs. 36,40,000/- on account of dividends from ... other co-operative societies as exempt income and the same was offered to tax in the revised return. The original assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2014 determining total income of Rs. 7,41,53,670/- after making an addition of Rs. 7,400/- on account

Nainital District Co-Operative Bank, Haldwani vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Haldwani

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

ITA 4091/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148

L & T Technology Services Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2542/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blel & T Technology Services Limited V. Acit – Circle – 2(2)(1) L & T House, N.M. Marg Room No. 545, 5Th Floor Mumbai - 400001 Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaccl4310P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar

Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 69CSection 90

grounds are, Assessing Officer while verifying the income declared by the assessee in original return of income filed on 31.11.2018 and the revised return of income filed on 27.03.2019 observed that assessee has claimed relief under section 90 / 90A has charged from ₹.19,07,11,678/- (in the original return ... income) to ₹.22,98,45,025/- (in the revised return of income). Assessing Officer observed that reported “Revenue from operation” was ₹.3506,55,10,924/- both in the original as well as revised return of income, which means that there was an under reporting of income to the tune

Bokam Sanyasi Naidu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward(International Taxation), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.36/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17) Bokam Sanyasi Naidu, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward (International Taxation) Pan: Aiwpb 3717 D Visakhapatnam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 5(2)(a)Section 50CSection 54E

provisions of section 50C of the Act. Thereafter, notice U/s. 148 was issued to the assessee. In response, the assessee filed revised return on 3/2/2022 admitting his share of LTCG as per the SRO value and claimed exempt income of Rs. 1,14,43,118/-. Subsequently, notice

Abhinav Jhalani, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Int. Tax.), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Oct 2023AY 2020-2021

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

For Appellant: Ms. Sweta Saboo, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CITa

Section 154Section 90

assessee could have made such applicationsince he is having a genuine claim but time limit specified under S 139 is prohibiting to file the revised return. According to the provisions of S. 119 of the Act, the CIT(A) is not having the powers to relax such time limitation ... claim is not in the ITR filed. The ld. CIT(A) also noted that the assessee has not filed the claim even in the revised return and therefore, holding that there is no power to allow the claim which has not been claimed in the return of income

T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 173/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R

Section 147Section 68

However, in response to the AO's notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 14/10/2010, requiring the assessee to file a revised return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 (as also the assessment year 2009-10) and to file a return of income for the assessment year ... lakhs and on money payments for purchase of properties, etc. was found and the assessee’s statement was recorded, wherein assessee agreed to file revised return for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2010-11. Secondly, the notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued

T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 1467/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R

Section 147Section 68

ACIT, Bangalore vs. Sri. T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore

ITA 1457/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R

Section 147Section 68

Balaji Homes, Panvel vs. CIT(A), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2470/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Balaji Homes C/O, P. N. Subranmanian & Cit(A), Mumbai Co. 3Rd Floor, 6Th Tower, 703-704, 7Th Floor, Vashi Railway Station Commodity Exchange Vs. Complex, Vashi, Building, Plot No. 2,3,4, Maharashtra-400703 Sector-19, Vashi, Maharashtra-400705 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahfb3601P

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Subramanian ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 143Section 250Section 37

revenue neutral, but assessee has already filed the return of income for those years and such claim could have been made by filing the revised return, which would have caused undue hardship to the appellant. Therefore he directed the assessing officer to allow the appellant to file revised computation