← 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

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

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

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

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

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

Addi. CIT Spl. 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 5920/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

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

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

Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 5509/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

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

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

Delhi Tourism Transportation and Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi

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

ITA 5167/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

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

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

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Delhi Tourism Transportation and Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4737/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

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

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

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Delhi Tourism Transportation and Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4100/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

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

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

Addl.CIT, Special Range-3, New Delhi vs. Delhi Tourism Transportation and Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 184/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

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

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

Kec International Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2512/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Blekec International Limited V. Dcit – Circle – 5(2)(1) 463 Rpg House Room No. 571, 5Th Floor Dr. Annie Besant Road Aayakar Bhawan Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400030 Pan: Aacck5599H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(5)Section 234BSection 80JSection 90

case of Goetze (India) Ltd., v. CIT [284 ITR 232 (SC)], the appellate authorities can entertain the fresh claim for deduction otherwise than by revised return of income. After considering the overall merits on the submissions made by the assessee, we are inclined to remit these issues back

Malco Energy Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle-10(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7314/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Malco Energy Limited Circle 10(2)(2), Vedanta House, Room No.209, 75, Nehru Road, Ville- 2Nd Floor, Parle, Vs. Mumbai-400 099 Aaykar Bhavan Maharashtra, India Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahcs6896A Assessee By : Ms. Fereshte Sethna, Shri Mrunal Parekh, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Fereshte SethnaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

total income and book profit under section 115JB of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was determined at ₹155,43,34,549/– against revised return filed by the assessee on 28thNovember2015, computing the income as per the normal provisions of the Act at ₹ Nil and book loss under section

Sumathi Pathipati, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Tirupati

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

ITA 430/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sumathi Pathipati, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Tirupati. R/O.Tirupati. Pan : Cgppp4253D. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate. Revenue By: Sri Aravindakshan, Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.09.2023

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Aravindakshan, Sr. A.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

provisions of Sec.68 of the I.T. Act.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that assessee is an individual, who filed her revised return of income on 29.11.2017 for the A.Y. 2016-17 was selected for “Limited” Scrutiny by CASS. Thereafter, notice under section 143(2) was issued

Dow Chemicals International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1201/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 32Section 36(1)(va)

year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 29/11/2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 286,62,42,450, and a revised return of income was filed on 30/08/2018 declaring the same income. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under

Jaypee Cement Corporation Limited, Noida vs. ACIT Circle 5(1)(1), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1070/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Jaypee Cement Vs. Acit, Corporation Ltd, Circle-5(1)(1), Sector-128, Gautam Noida Budh Nagar, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacz2168D

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 32A

Auditor. However, on noticing the mistake that had happened in the return and in view of the fact that the time limit for filing revised return has expired, the assessee voluntarily withdrew the excess claim of deduction u/s 32AC of the Act vide its letter dated 02.04.2019 wherein, clearly stating

JCIT(OSD), CC-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the cross- objection filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1267/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Navin Verma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 35

I.T.A. No. 1267/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 C.O. No. 29/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Paharpur Cooling Tower Ltd. 3 did not file any revised return claiming such deduction on account of reversal entry on interest income as reflected on 26AS statement. 5. That the Department craves leave

M/S Mfar Developers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 385/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: S/Shri C.R. Krishna & Sachin Mehta, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Saravanan B., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 14ASection 32Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

construction and leasing out of commercial premises. Assessee filed return of income on 30.10.2017 declaring loss of Rs.29,81,88,300. Subsequently assessee filed revised return declaring total income of Rs.19,20,01,278. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. 3. During

Aluminium Pechiney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Int. Tax., New Dehi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 9484/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice-Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aluminium Pechiney, Vs. Dcit, C/O- Ca, Praveen Gambhir, Circle-1(1)(1), 87-B, Masjid Moth Ph-2, International Taxation, Dda Flats, G.K. 3, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaica3338C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154

taxable in India. He submitted, such claim made by the assessee should not have been entertained as it was not made through revised return of income. Without prejudice, he submitted that the technical specific drawings and designs were transferred by the assessee to the entities in India for consideration. Drawing

Aluminium Pechiney, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Int. Tax., New Dehi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 9483/DEL/2019[ 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice-Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aluminium Pechiney, Vs. Dcit, C/O- Ca, Praveen Gambhir, Circle-1(1)(1), 87-B, Masjid Moth Ph-2, International Taxation, Dda Flats, G.K. 3, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaica3338C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154

taxable in India. He submitted, such claim made by the assessee should not have been entertained as it was not made through revised return of income. Without prejudice, he submitted that the technical specific drawings and designs were transferred by the assessee to the entities in India for consideration. Drawing

M/S Aluminium Pechiney, New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3410/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble Vice-Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Aluminium Pechiney, Vs. Dcit, C/O- Ca, Praveen Gambhir, Circle-1(1)(1), 87-B, Masjid Moth Ph-2, International Taxation, Dda Flats, G.K. 3, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aaica3338C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 154

taxable in India. He submitted, such claim made by the assessee should not have been entertained as it was not made through revised return of income. Without prejudice, he submitted that the technical specific drawings and designs were transferred by the assessee to the entities in India for consideration. Drawing

Gajraj Giri, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bilaspur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of my observations above

ITA 222/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 222/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gajraj Giri S/O. Raghuraj Giri, Sai Mandir Road, Jaharbhata, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan : Afgpg0112E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)

INCOME TAX : Where assessee challenged reopening notice on ground that there was absence of reasons with material particulars for proposed reassessment, since assessee filed revised return in compliance of terms of reopening notice, it would be construed that assessee participated in reassessment proceedings and surrendered to jurisdiction ... notice issued dated 15-3- 2022 was not considered and there was absence of reasons with material particulars for reassessment - Whether since assessee filed revised return in compliance of terms of reopening notice, it would be construed that assessee participated in reassessment proceedings and surrendered to jurisdiction of Assessing Officer

Ntt India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT/Tax/ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 722/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Ntt India Pvt. Ltd. Addl/Jt/Dy./Acit/Tax/Ito 1701-1704, B-Wing, One Bkc Level, National Faceless Assessment Centre 17 G Block, Plot No. C-65, Vs. Delhi Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd 2145 G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta : Shri Sunil A Umap & Revenue By Shri Samuel Pitta Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2023 : 04.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta

erred in granting TDS credit of Rs 52,46,91,071/- against Rs 53,91,49,621/- as claimed in the revised return of income filed by the Appellant. The Appellant, therefore, prays the Hon'ble Members to direct the learned AO to grant balance credit ... short guarantee of tax deducted at source credited to Rs.1,44,58,550/-. As this ground requires factual verification, as per the revised return of income filed by the assessee, we hereby remand this issue back to the file of the A.O. for verifying the TDS credit and to allow

Shri Sant Sena Maharaj Nabhik Samajachi Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha, Maryadit, Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrd-1(4), Jalgaon

The appeal of the assessee is DISMISSED

ITA 841/PUN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 841/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shri Sant Sena Maharaj Nabhik Samajachi Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Behind Shani Mandir, Radhabai Chal, Chalisgaon – 424 101 Pan: Aabas8462N . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S Income Tax Officer- 1(4), Jalgaon . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Abhay Avachat [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Shri R Y Balawade [‚Ld. Dr] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 10/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Instituted U/S 253(1) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] Challenges Din & Order No. Itba/Nfsc/S/250/2023- 24/1052715471(1) Dt. 10/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’ Hereafter].

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Avachat [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Shri R Y Balawade [‚Ld. DR]

Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 246A(1)(c)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80Section 80P

this position of law can be more clearly adumbrated or tabulated as under; Original Return of Income Filed Revised Return of Income Filed Allowability of Allowability of After expiry of due After expiry of due Asst. Year Sr Deduction u/c VI-A Deduction u/c VI-A Within due date Within

Meenal Hemanshu Nandola, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Pune

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL

ITA 834/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 834/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Meenal Hemanshu Nandola 286-A, Shree Ganesh Chambers, Ganesh Peth, Pune Pan: Amzpn6419P . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant

For Appellant: Ms Kimaya for Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri R. Y. Balawade

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

payment challan, PF/ESI office receipt etc. We further note that, while dismissing aforestated contention, the Ld. NFAC called upon the assessee to furnish revised return and revised audit report in support of her claim of having deposited within the prescribed due date, which remained to be complied or filed