← 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

ACIT - 14(2) (2), Mumbai vs. Pfizer Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2108/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm M/S Pfizer Limited The Capital, 1802/1901, Acit-14(2)(2) Plot No.C-70, G-Block, 461, 4T H Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp3334M

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, CIT
Section 32Section 35D

Rs.1,939,382,340 whereas the Wyeth Limited has filed its original return of income at Rs. 141,04,95,520 and the revised return filed on 30/3/2016 are Rs. Nil. The AO noted that the combined income of both these entities ... passed on 31/12/2016 determining total income at Rs. 4,949,621,342/- against the returned income as per the revised return of income of Rs. 1,939,382,340/-. 08. Assessee aggrieved with assessment Order, preferred appeal before the learned CIT –( A), who passed an appellate order on 24/1/2018

M/S. Bharat Electronics Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Payers Tax Unit, Circle-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 420/BANG/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Bharat Electronics The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Registered Office, Of Income Tax, Outer Ring Road, Ltu, Nagawara, Circle – 1, Bangalore – 560 045. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaacb5985C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Richa B, Ca & Shri Hemasundar P, Ca Revenue By : Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12-09-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-09-2023 Order Per Madhumita Roythe Instant Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2023 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi Arising Out Of The Order Dated 28.03.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Large Tax Payers Unit, Circle – 1, Bangalore U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For A.Y. 2009-10 Whereby & Whereunder The Addition Made In The Reassessment Proceeding U/S. 148 Of The Act For The A.Y. 2009-10 Has Been Confirmed.

For Appellant: Ms. Richa B, CA &For Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 35

income declaring total income at Rs.1004,29,76,670/-. Notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and served upon the appellant; followed by a revised return on Page 4 of 19 18.03.2011 declaring total income at Rs.1004,00,57,290/-. The appellant duly complied with all the notices by furnishing required

M/S Bellary Iron-Ores Private Limited, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

ITA 15/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 102Section 139(1)Section 173Section 194ASection 226(3)

legal and factual position realised that company’s real income is much less than the revenue booked in the account and hence, revised return was filed on 17.03.2016 claiming deduction of the retention money debited by the parties during the year amounting to Rs.142,53,74,710/-. It was also ... when the assessee realised that its real income was much less than the revenue booked in the account it filed a revised return on 17.03.2016 claiming deduction of the retention money which was deducted by the parties to the tune of Rs.142.53 cr. and thus in the revised return income

M/S Bellary Iron-Ores Pvt Ltd, Bellary vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Hospet

ITA 1540/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Shivprasad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 102Section 139(1)Section 173Section 194ASection 226(3)

legal and factual position realised that company’s real income is much less than the revenue booked in the account and hence, revised return was filed on 17.03.2016 claiming deduction of the retention money debited by the parties during the year amounting to Rs.142,53,74,710/-. It was also ... when the assessee realised that its real income was much less than the revenue booked in the account it filed a revised return on 17.03.2016 claiming deduction of the retention money which was deducted by the parties to the tune of Rs.142.53 cr. and thus in the revised return income

Devendra Mehta, Jabalpur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1) Jabalpur, Jabalpur

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

ITA 80/JAB/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaledevendra Mehta, Vs Dcit, 1084, Sanjivani Nagar, Circle-2(1), Jabalpur-482003 (M.P.) Jabalpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afppm8269P Assessee By Shri Sughosh Bhamore & Shri Hitesh Trivedi Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

Section 10Section 133Section 143(1)Section 154

wrong date in the order. 1 | P a g e 3. That LD CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that the revised return was furnished by the assessee. 4. That LD CIT(A) erred in not allowing the full deduction u/s 10(10AA ... tribunal has the power to entertain the claim of 2 | P a g e deduction not claimed before the Assessing officer by filing a revised return. (2019) 416 ITR 591 (Cal). The Goetze India LTD has already been Distinguished by Tribunals (2010) 4 ITR (Trib) 44 ITAT Chennai, By high

M/S. Soham Estate, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1, Thane

ITA 690/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Dr. K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

supra), by a notice dated 6/2/2013, the Revenue sought to reopen the assessment in the year 2007-08. The Assessee filed a revised return of income and sought for reasons recorded in support of the notice dated 6.2.2013. The reasons were furnished only on 19.3.2015. The Assessee lodged objections

Van Oord India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 5(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 792/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy() & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144C(14)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee filed the return of income for A.Y.2009-10 on 30/09/2010 declaring total income at Rs.10,92,11,700/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 30/03/2011 declaring a total income of Rs.10,97,33,32/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the statutory notices were duly

M/S. United Phosphorus Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 38, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4695/MUM/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Appellant Vs. Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ..... Respondent Acit Cc -2 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-38 Mumbai ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. United Phosphorus Limited, Mumbai (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.) Uniphos House, 11-C.D. Marg Opp. Madhu Park Khar (W) Mumbai – 400 052 Pan: Aaacu3440P ...... Respondent (Now Known As Uniphos Enterprises Ltd.)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti B Patel / Shri KiritFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

identical, hence found to be eligible for purposes of section 80 IA. 44. Ground no. VIII pertains to deduction under section 80HHC. In the revised return of income, the appellant claimed deduction under section 80HHC amounting to Rs. 4, 27, 96,578/- as per the Audit Report under section 80HHC

Mesers Improvement Trust, Fazilka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 307/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 28

Appeals) has erred by confirming the addition of Rs 6,09,41,639/- instead of loss of Rs 38,76,965 as per revised return filed, supported by the books of accounts maintained as prescribed by the Govt, of Punjab. 7. On the facts & in the circumstances ofthecase

M/S Bansal Extraction & Export P Ltd, Bhopal vs. DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 164/IND/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Bansal Extraction & Dcit Export Pvt. Ltd. Central-1 3Rd Floor Tawa Complex, Bittan Bhopal Vs. Market E-4, Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aadcb 7521 M Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2023

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

section 153A of the Act. Subsequently, this return was revised on 27.01.2014 and total income was shown at Rs. 80,70,896/-. In the revised return the appellant offered income from undisclosed source of Rs. 2,25,00,000/- which has been shown under the head" Income from other source

Apl Metals Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 3(3), Kolkata

ITA 297/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm I.T.A. No.297/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Apl Metals Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, National C/O, Subash Agarwal & Faceless Assessment Centre, Associates, Advocates, Siddha Delhi. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata- 700069. (Pan: Aacca4246P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

quantitative details submitted before him. There cannot be a sale without a purchase. 4) Interest u/s. 234A has been charged on the basis of revised return filed. No interest u/s. 234A is chargeable as original return was filed within the due date. 5) The Ld AO. did not provide

Rajesh Aggarwal, Dehradun vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Dehradun

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

ITA 205/DDN/2019[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Rajesh Aggarwal, Vs. Dcit, B-4, New Sabzi Mandi, Vikash Central Circle, Nagar, Distti. Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpa7592E Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sahni, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

natural justice. 2. That the assessment of income by the Ld AO is illegal since the Assessment Order is based on a time barred revised Return. 3. That the Ld AO has erred in law and on facts in making addition of surrendered income during the course of search operations

Shri Pritpal Singh, Dehradun vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 189/DDN/2019[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Shri Pritpal Singh, Vs. Acit, 71, Guru Road, Circle-2, Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahkps3632F Assessee By : Shri Savyasachi Kumar Sahai, Adv Revenue By: Shri Amar Singh Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

For Appellant: Shri Savyasachi Kumar Sahai, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amar Singh Rana, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

increasing the taxable income to Rs. 36,44,523/-. The ld AO observed that since the original return was filed electronically, the revised return should also be filed electronically within the time permitted u/s 139(5) of the Act. The time limit u/s 139(5) of the Act expired ... hence, the AO treated the manual revised return filed on 29.11.2016 as non est. Later in order to regularise the said revised return, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the ld AO on 02.12.2016. The Assessee submitted that the revised return filed

ACIT(Ltu-1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tcs Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5904/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

Assessing Officer did not allow the claim of the assessee for the reason that a new claim cannot be made without filing the revised return of income by relying on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd vs CIT 284ITR ... 10AA but has merely recomputed profits eligible for deduction and, therefore, the contention that the same is required to b made only through a revised return, is not correct. On merits, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has shown the interest income as part of business income, which fact

Tata Consultancy Serrvices Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 5199/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 115JSection 14ASection 19Section 40Section 90(1)(a)

Assessing Officer did not allow the claim of the assessee for the reason that a new claim cannot be made without filing the revised return of income by relying on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd vs CIT 284ITR ... 10AA but has merely recomputed profits eligible for deduction and, therefore, the contention that the same is required to b made only through a revised return, is not correct. On merits, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has shown the interest income as part of business income, which fact

Sbm Chemicals & Instruments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 8(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 534/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 45Section 54E

declaring total income of INR 22,94,11,820/- which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a revised return on 26/12/2013 declaring total income of INR 23,00,31,800/-. 4.1. The case of the Appellant was selected for regular scrutiny. The Assessing

ACIT Circle-11(1), New Delhi vs. Hcl Infotech Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7267/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv and Shri Hardeep Singh Chawla, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244A

ignoring the facts that the refund was delayed for reasons attributable to the assessee as no claim of TDS was made in the revised return of income. Page 1 of 4 ITA No.-7267/Del/2019 HCL Infotech Ltd. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee ... filed its original return of income on 30.11.2014 claiming TDS of Rs. 15,38,86,689/-. The said return was revised and the revised return of TDS was made at Rs. 25,63,61,108/-. Though the claim of TDS was made properly but due to some technical error

Akshata Vishwas Tudavekar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 411/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik M., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 270A

order dated 19.2.2018, the CIT(Appeals) recorded these facts in para 5 of his order that Mr. Nagesh Shastry was instrumental in filing the revised return. However, the same facts and arguments in the penalty proceedings are not considered by the CIT(Appeals). In our opinion, it is proper

Shri Namiyun Parswanath Jain, Swetamber Manidhari Trust, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Jabalpur

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes”

ITA 100/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur14 Sept 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Sri Rahul Bardia.CA. ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR
Section 11Section 119(2)Section 12ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 154

trust registered u/s 12AA/12A of the Act.The assessee has filed the return of income electronically for the A.Y 2018-19 on 06.08.2018 and subsequently revised return of income was filed on 30.03.2019.Whereas the Audit report in Form No.10B was filed/uploaded on 26.02.2020 and the return of income was processed ... filling portal for uploading form No.10B on 03.08.2018 and the assessee has filed the return of income on 06.08.2018 and also filed the revised return of income on 30-03-2018. Further the audit report in Form. No.10B was uploaded by the C.A. on 26.02.2020 and the assessee was dependent

ACIT Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Department in ITA No

ITA 5922/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 43B

accepted the claim of the appellant as appellant has not made the claim in the original return and also not filed the revised return. The certificate in Form 10CCB was not enclosed along with its return of income. In the remand report AO has submitted that appellant has made fresh ... held as under:- "3. Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the assessee made claim by way of an application without filing a revised return and in such a situation, judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 was applicable