“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

Shyamnarayan Traders P. Ltd, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-4(3)(1)- Current Jurisdiction, Ward-4(3)(4)-Old Juridiction, Mumbai

ITA 148/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri a/wFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 250

were initiated and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 26/07/2010. In response to the aforesaid notice, the assessee filed a revised return of income Shyamnarayan Trades Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.148/Mum./2023 declaring a loss from house property to the tune of Rs.11,17,529. On verification

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2486/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

under: a) The assessee filed original return of income u/s.139(1) of the I. T. Act on 30.01.2006. b) The assessee subsequently filed revised return of income on 25.07.2008 declaring total income of Rs.10,45,61,640/-. c) The case was also reopened u/s.148 and the assessment u/s.143(1) r.w.s ... 30/11/2006, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 15/02/2008 and rectified u/s 154 on 21/02/2008 and 25/02/2008. The assessee filed revised return on 25/07/2008 at Rs.10,45,61,640/-, reducing the claim of deduction u/s 80IB in respect of Jogeshwari Project. In response to notices issued u/s143

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Patel Engineering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2485/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon’Ble

Section 14ASection 154Section 199(2)Section 80I

Jik Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-2(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1039/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sunil TalatiFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37

read with Section 36(2) of the Act, though the same was voluntarily disallowed. According to the Appellant the time for filing revised return of income had expired, and therefore, the Appellant filed revised computation of income during the assessment proceedings. Further, since the Appellant-Company had huge brought forward ... cannot be said that there was voluntary disclosure. In rejoinder, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted that the time for filing revised return had expired and therefore, the Appellant had to file revised statement of income during the assessment proceedings. Further, it was also submitted that the there

Virender Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1780/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Manu Giri, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80

that assessee has filed his original return within the prescribed due date i.e. on 22.09.2018 which is an undisputed fact. Further, assessee filed revised return on 24.01.2019 in response to the proposed adjustment sought by CPC, Bengaluru. In both, original and the revised return, the claim of current year loss ... Assessee has claimed the carry forward of the current year business loss in his original return. Subsequently, he filed a revised return pursuant to e.mail communication by CPC, Bengaluru on account of proposed adjustment wherein also the claim of current year business loss for carry forward remained unchanged as claimed

Satish Pandurang Pawar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik/

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.361 & 362/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Both Dated 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 19.01.2022 & 18.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Assessee For A.Y.2017- 18 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs.1,57,400/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish

Section 133ASection 148Section 270A

company. Assessee filed original Return for A.Y. 2017-18 electronically on 18.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.6,63,160/-. Then, he filed revised Return of Income for A.Y. 2017-18 electronically on 23.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.7,55,190/-. The assessee again filed revised Return of Income for A.Y.2017-18

Satish Pandurang Pawar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik/

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Section 133ASection 148Section 270A

Rajiv Venkataraman, Secunderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 174/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri J. Prabhakar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

According to the learned AR, the assessee filed the revised XML after downloading fresh copy of Form 26AS on 25/06/2020 which tantamount to a revised return, but it treated as rectification application by the CPC and it should be noted that the software of the Department does not permit filing ... always open for the First Appellate Authority to consider a claim permissible under law preferred by the assessee otherwise than by filing a revised return. 7. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned DR that the assessee preferred the claim relating to the exempt of income

Jaihind Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Malegaon, Nashik

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

ITA 135/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jaihind Nagari Sahkari Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Malegaon. Patsanstha Maryadit, Main Road, Raunaqabad, Malegaon, Nashik- 423203. Pan : Aaaaj8229M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 28.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That Appellant Is A Co- Operative Society Registered Under The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members & Accepting The Deposits From Its Members. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 1Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80A(5)Section 80CSection 80P

assessee furnished original return taking the benefit of section 10B and did not carry forward the loss. Thereafter, a revised return was filed foregoing the claim of deduction u/s 10B. The AO rejected the withdrawal of exemption under Section 10B by holding that assessee did not furnish the necessary declaration

Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 81/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.81/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Ltd. Executive Director (Fin.), Csptcl, Second Floor, Sldc Building, Cseb Office Campus, Danginiya Raipur-492 013 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5773E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

income was e-filed by the assessee company for A.Y.2011-12 on 31.03.2013, declaring a loss of Rs.(-) 41,21,48,674/-(as per revised return). Case of the assessee was, thereafter, selected for scrutiny assessment u/s.143(2) of the Act. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed

Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Raipur

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

ITA 143/RPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Icici Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 158/MUM/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit Cir 3(1) Vs. Icici Bank Ltd. Room No. 607, 6 Th Floor, Icici Towers, Bkc, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cir. 2(3)(1) Icici Towers, North East Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Wing, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bkc, Bandra(E) Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact1398K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Aarti Visanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri. K.C. Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri. K.C. Selvamani, DR

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 33Section 47

fact in brief is that the return of income declaring total income of ₹314,57,08,980/- was filed on 31.10.2001. The assessee filed revised return of income on 28.03.2003 declaring loss of ₹91,11,71,830/- and total income u/s 115JA was computed at ₹95,72,42,478/-. Thereafter

Pratap Teckchand Dadlaney, Mumbai vs. The Asstt. Director of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 1144/MUM/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Shah/Yash RanglaniFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)Section 90

claimed FTC under section 90 r/w Article 24 of the India – Australia Tax Treaty in 6 A.Y. 2019-20 Pratap Teckchand Dadlaney the revised returned income. However the assessee did not file Form No. 67 before filing the return of income. On realizing the same, the assessee filed Form ... subsequently and thereafter the revised returned income was processed by CPC and intimation under section 143(1) was issued disallowing the claim of FTC. In the said factual background, the Coordinate Bangalore Benches vide its order dated 17/11/2021 has held that Rule 128(9) of the Rules does not provide

Acc Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 800/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Dcit (Ltu) 121, Cement House, M.K. Road 29Th Floor, Center-1 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai - 400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Asst. Cit – 3(4) V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 Cement House,121, M.K. Road World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400005 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Parle Biscuits Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2484/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 270ASection 28Section 40

said expenses were not claimed as deduction in assessment years 2019-20 and 2020-21. As the time limit for filing the revised return of income has expired, the assessee was not in a position to claim the said expenses in the original or revised return of income for assessment

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai-400005 vs. M/S. Acc Limited, Mumbai-400020

In the result, appeal filed by department is dismissed

ITA 1171/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Section 14A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “K”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the In the result, appeals of the Revenue as well appeals of the assessee are a...

ITA 720/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM

Everest Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle- 1, Thane

ITA 719/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM

DCIT Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd., Delhi

ITA 652/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM

DCIT, Circle-1, Thane vs. Everest Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1424/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar/For Respondent: Mr. Biswanath Das, CIT-DR/

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM