“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

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S Eqitasholfings Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 866/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.G

For Appellant: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, CA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

involved in assessment year 2011-12 and assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2011 and subsequently the income was revised by filing a revised return on 14.02.2012. The original assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 07.11.2013. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s.148

Sundaram Fasteners Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 74/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40Section 43Section 43B

return of income filed on 16/11/2007, the assessee had declared a taxable income of Rs.101,64,55,333/-. The assessee had filed the revised return of income admitting an income of Rs.98,66,80,908/-. The assessee obtained the acknowledgement for the revised return only on 01.04.2009. Since the revised ... Additional depreciation of Rs.2,53,63,037/- v) To disallow the difference of Rs.2,97,74,425/- between the original and revised return since revised return was filed belatedly. The ld.counsel for the assessee before us argued and drew our attention to page 23 of assessee’s paper-book, whereby

DCIT, Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai vs. Sundaram Fasteners Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 317/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40Section 43Section 43B

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3522/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Circle 4(2), Versus Bharti Hexacom Ltd., New Delhi. Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-2, New Delhi. Pan: Aaach1766P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Sh. Anil Bhalla & Vinay Meena, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Goswami, CIT-DR

Section 194HSection 35ASection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 26.11.2015 declaring income of Rs.1644,58,64,360/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 23.03.2017 3 declaring income of Rs.1619,58,64,360/-. In course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

Sun Infrastructures Private Limited, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 647/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 139(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

filed u/s 139(1) are as under – i. PCIT Vs Wipro Ltd [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC) 9. In such a situation, filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act claiming carrying forward of losses subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case ... assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under section' 139(1) and cannot transform it into

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Blue Dart Express Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1370/MUM/2022[1370]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 250

Comp. Ltd. (supra) The question before the Court was whether the appellant-assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer The claim, therefore ... does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited

Ginjala Atchiraju, L/R. of Ginjala Simhadri Raju, Kakinada vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -1, Kakinada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 159/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri Sankar Pandi, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

income for the AY 2015-16 by admitting business income of Rs. 3,18,120/- and capital gains at Rs. NIL. Subsequently, the revised return was filed on 30/09/2016 by admitting long term capital gains of Rs. 45,155/-. The assessee during the course of the survey operations submitted that

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhaprtnam vs. Fluentgrid Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

replies of the assessee concluded that the assessee did not report the change in the accounting policy in Form 3CD or through filing the revised return of income and therefore disallowed the claim of depreciation for Rs. 3,66,34,569/- claimed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the order ... previous year. Even if there is regrouping of assets, the assessee should have reported the same either in Form No. 3CD or through filing revised return of income/ 4. The appellant craves leave to add or delete or amend or substitute any ground of appeal before

Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd., Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 24/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.16/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. O/O. Executive Director-Finance Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Ltd. Ground Floor, Vidyut Seva Bhawan, Daganiya, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aadcc5772F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

return of income was filed by the assessee company for A.Y.2009-10 on 30.03.2011, declaring a loss of Rs.(-) 273,10,01,778/- (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 ... interest u/s 234A/B/C of Rs.4,02,13,333/- on the returned income as per section 115JB on or before filing of revised return. 2). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) erred in confirming action of Assessing Officer in making disallowance of Rs.4

The Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited, Raipur, Raipur (Cg) vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 1(2), Raipur, Raipur (Cg)

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

ITA 16/BIL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32

Asus India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-9(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7147/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.7147/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Asus India Private Ito Ward- 9(1) (4), Limited. Mumbai. 402, Supreme Chamber, बनाम/ Veera Desai Road, Vs. Andheri West, Mumbai-400 053. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aajca 6450C (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथी की ओरसे/ Appellant By : Dhanesh Bafna, Pratik Shah, Ms. Tejal Saraf, Ms. Riddhi M Maru Shri Anoop Hiwase (Sr. Dr) प्रत्यथी की ओरसे/Respondent By : सुनवधई की तधरीख/ 21.03.2023 : Date Of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 14.06.2023 : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi: 1) This Appeal Is Filed By Asus India Private Limited [Assessee/ Appellant] Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 144C (13) R.W.S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 On 26Th October, 2017 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2 I.T.A. No. 7147/Mum/2017 Asus India Private Limited Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Dhanesh Bafna, Pratik Shah

Section 115JSection 144CSection 92C

computation of income and book profit u/s 115JB computed at Rs.3,98,36,847/-. The return was picked up for scrutiny. Subsequently, the assessee revised return of income on 31/03/2015 for change in carry forwarding of MAT credit. 3) As the assessee engaged in the business of distribution of Asus

Smt.Geetanjali Mahajan, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (5), Jalandhar

In the result the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA no

ITA 97/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

faith and to buy peace- Penalty under s. 271(1)(c) rightly deleted Assessee having surrendered additional income along with an explanation in the revised return filed in pursuance of notice under s. 148, and the assessing authority having not taken, any objection that the assessee’s explanation

The Nimar Educational Society, Khandwa vs. The Exemption Circle, Bhopal

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

ITA 162/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanithe Nimar Educational Society Cit(E) Harsud Road, Civil Lines Bhopal Vs. East Nimar, Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aabtt 1409 K Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.06.2023

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 80G

purposes are disallowed. Against this intimation assessee filed rectification applications u/s 154 of the Act which were rejected and assessee also tried to file revised return of income within the statutory time limit provided in the Act but the same could not be uploaded due to technical error

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-1, Kota vs. Shri Chandi Ram, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 662/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)

computation wherein deduction was claimed on account of remission by bank under one time settlement Assessee did not raise said claim by filing a revised return because prescribed time for filing return had already elapsed Assessing Officer refused to consider revised computation submitted by assessee Whether since mandate of Constitution ... remission by bank under one time settlement – Assessee did not raise said 33 ITO vs. Lt. Sh. Chandi Ram, Kota claim by filing a revised return because prescribed time for filing return had already elapsed – Assessing Officer refused to consider revised computation submitted by assessee – Whether since mandate of Constitution

M/S Tricon Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2985/MUM/2022[2020-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2020-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-2021 M/S Tricon Global Services Dy. Cit, Cpc Private Limited, Bengaluru-560100 701, Dlh Park, S.V. Road, Off Vs. Mtnl, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400062. Pan No. Aabco 0321 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR

Section 10(34)Section 115Section 40Section 90(2)

original return of income. The claim of refund of dividend original return of income. The claim of refund of dividend distribution tax made in revised return made in revised return was rejected by the Ld. was rejected by the Ld. Central Processing Centre, Bangalore (CPC) Central Processing Centre, Bangalore ... effective inclusive of surcharge and education cess at an effective distribution tax rate of 26.56%. distribution tax rate of 26.56%. But, in the revised return of the revised return of income, the assessee the assessee claimed that in view of India USA Double claimed that in view of India

M/S. Satia Industries Limited, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

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

ITA 193/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144C(8)Section 250oSection 69C

Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 1(1), 2012] 17 taxmann.com 186 (Orissa)- Held“Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Return of income - Revised return - Assessment year 2006-07 - Whether an assessee can revise his return of income by way of filing a revised statement of income after filing ... original return other than by way of filing revised return as contemplated under section 139(5) - Held, no" 7. The ld. AR further argued and placed that a written submission related to comparable study of comment of DRP and the assessee’s submission in relation to claim of the income

Tekchand, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(5), Gautam Budh Nagar

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1016/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Amit Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 45ASection 56(2)(vii)

total income at ‘Nil’ where exempt income shown was Rs.18,26,202/- being interest on land compensation from NOIDA Authority. The assessee thereafter filed revised return on 21.03.2017 again reporting ‘Nil’ taxable income and claimed the entire interest on land compensation of Rs.18,26,202/- as exempt. Thereafter, a notice ... consultant of the assessee filed return of income on 16.08.2019 declaring total income of Rs.9,19,070/-. The ld. counsel thus submitted that the revised return in response to 148 proceedings included the escaped income in terms of provision of Section 56(2)(vii) r.w. Section

Satish Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 9601/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 54F

Apex Court has expounded that the said decision would not impinge upon the powers of ITAT in dealing with the claim otherwise than by revised return. Accordingly, we direct that the above ground be admitted and decided as per law. Needless to say the assessee be given opportunity of being

Steel Authority of India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 9, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2563/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargsteel Authority Of India Vs. Acit Ltd., Taxation Dept., Range – 9 4Th Floor, Ispat Bhavan, New Delhi Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan No. Aaacs 7062 F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri M. P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amaresh Singh, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 12.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.06.2023

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Courts on the matter and granting Steel Authority of India Ltd.. vs. ACIT 3 credit for pre-paid taxes as claimed in the Revised Return even which are appearing in the 26AS Statement on the website of the Department, by stating that these issues in the third round ... third round of litigation in respect of; (i) disallowance u/s 14A of the Act (ii) credit for TDS as claimed in the revised return as per 26AS statement. Steel Authority of India Ltd.. vs. ACIT 4 7. With respect to Section 14A of the Act, Ld AR submitted that

Wilson Engineering Industries(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80I

While taking into consideration, the return filed by the assessee, the AO had considered the revised return filed on 13.06.2018 and due to this reason the character of the return filed by the assessee turned into belated return. Therefore, the claim of the assessee u/s 80IC was denied ... notice to prove the fact that the copy of the original return of income filed by the assessee dated 31.10.2017 and copy of the revised return filed on 13.06.2018 along with copy of Form No. 10CCB dated 13.06.2018 to prove his case that the return of assessee was filed within