“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

Lintas India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2018/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 92CSection 92C(1)

made under section 14A, the DRP held that the same cannot be entertained since the assessee has not made the claim by filing the revised return of income. The Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order as per the directions of the DRP against which the assessee is in appeal

M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune

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

ITA 334/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta

Section 92C

Assessing Officer had made an addition on account of TP adjustment of Rs.22,76,78,495/- and rejected to take cognizance of the revised return of income, wherein, the assessee company sought to claim long term capital loss arising on sale of shares of BSPL, a C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 subsidiary ... Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 30.12.2019 given following directions :- ―(i) The loss on sale of shares of Rs.922 crore claimed in the revised return should not be entertained. (ii) However, since there is a claim of capital loss of Rs.922 crore made during the course of assessment proceedings

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Pune vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune

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

ITA 273/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta

Section 92C

Seaway Shipping & Logistics Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 181/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mithilesh Sai, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.Vijay Bhaskar Reddy

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 92Section 92CSection 92E

business of Shipping & Intermediary services, filed its return of income on 14.10.2010 declaring loss of Rs. 46,80,71,728/-. Later, the revised return was filed declaring a loss of Rs. 55,45,32,778/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed

S.Saroja, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporae Circle-19(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 418/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 S. Saroja, Deputy Commissioner Of Door No. 47, Pandian Street, V. Income Tax, Sankaran Avenue, Velachery, Non Corporate Circle – 19(1), Chennai – 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Baeps-1299-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. B. Sakthivel, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri. B. Sakthivel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 270A

noticed that the assessee has adopted annual value of house property at Rs. 5,40,000/-, instead of Rs. 8,40,000/- in the revised return filed for the relevant assessment year and therefore, called upon the assessee to explain as to why difference should not be added under ... assessee had also offered interest income under the head income from business. The said :-5-: ITA. No: 418/Chny/2023 mistake has been continued in revised return filed for relevant assessment year. However, during assessment proceedings when the AO noticed said lapse, the assessee admitted the mistake and offered

Agastya International Foundation, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Exemptions, Circle-1, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 289/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Agastya International Foundation, The Assistant Commissioner Of #101, 1St Floor, Varsav Plaza, Income Tax (Exemptions), 12 Jayamahal Main Road, Vs. Circle - 1, Bengaluru – 560 046. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaata 3882 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2023

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Year 2016-17, return of income was filed on 16.10.2016 declaring Nil income, after claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 31.03.2018 declaring ‘Nil’ income (the revised return was filed since there was change in corpus donations). The assessment was selected

M/S. Satchmo Holdings Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 288/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 3C

Satchmo Holdings Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 4 a total Loss of Rs. 44,40,07,230/- and thereafter, the assessee had filed its revised return of loss on 24/10/2018, reporting a total loss of Rs. 39,04,33,911/-. The case of the assessee was selected for "Complete Scrutiny

Gayatri Commercial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. CPC/ITO.22(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 114/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.114/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2019-20) Gayatri Commercial Premises बिधम/ Cpc/Ito, 22 (1)(4) Co-Op, Society Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers Vs. Unit No. 102/103, Behind Lalbaugh Mumbai- 400034 Mittal Ind. Estate Andheri Kurla Andheri (East) Mumbai- 400059 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaag5064D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri. N.R. Agarwal Revenue By: Shri. Krishna Kumar, (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2023 आदेश/Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 13-12-2022 For Ay 2019-20 Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 93,20,286/-. 2. The Assessee Society Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal Reads As Under: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.93,20,286/- As A Business Income In Order Passed U/S 143(1) & 154 Of The Act By Cpc. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Granting Deduction Under Mutuality Principal.” 3. The Regarding Ground No. 1, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee By Observing As Under: - “The Ld. Cit(A) Has Rejected The Assessees’S The Ground Of Appeal By Observing At Para No. 7 Of The Impugned Order As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri. N.R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar, (Sr. AR)

Section 143(1)

scope does not extend to examine whether a new claim can be made by the appellant otherwise than by filing revised return and whether or not it can be entertained since the appeal under consideration is not an appeal against 143(1) order

DCIT -5(2) (1), Mumbai vs. Kec International Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 3.1 & 3.2 raised by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 33/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Shekhar

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)

30/11/2013 declaring total income of INR 24,88,63,040/-, which was revised to total income of INR 23,09,74,130/- vide revised return filed on 31/03/2015. The case of the Assessee was selected for regular scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Assessee

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 1 (3)92), Mumbai

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

ITA 7807/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), A Wing, 11Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lower Parel (East), Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4050 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4387/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 153A

DDLL, the appellant filed revised managers. In the case of DDLL, the appellant filed revised managers. In the case of DDLL, the appellant filed revised return for AY 2012 return for AY 2012-13 in which the original returned income of 13 in which the original returned income of Rs.32.56

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4386/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 153A

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4385/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 153A

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4384/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 153A

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4383/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 153A

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4382/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 153A

Shri Kannan Kashi Vishwanathan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assess

ITA 4381/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Appellant: Mr. Nilesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Neehar Ranjan Pandey, CIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 153A

Larsen & Toubro Infotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 1924/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Percy J PardiwallaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

declaring total income of INR 30,25,87,218/- under normal provisions of the Act which was revised on 29.03.2011. In the revised return of income, the Appellant declared total income of INR 32,29,45,823/- under normal provision of the Act. The case of the Appellant was selected

Shrimati Saraswati Manuja Education and Well Living Society, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward Exemption 2(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 663/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat:Ita No. _663/Del/2023 [Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 234BSection 250

available up to 15.02.2021 for the very same assessment year i.e. 2020-21, nothing would have been prevented the assessee from filing a revised return to this extent as 6 deemed fit as claimed by the assessee. Considering these valuable facts involving assessee’s non-revising of the return

Analysys Mason India Private Limited, Haryana vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1611/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Ms. Renuka Suri, CaFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 28

1 Analysys mason India Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI ANIL