“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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Blujay Solutions (India) Private Limited (Formerly Known As Kewill India Private Limited), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1148/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Mithilesh Sai, CAFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 32

Officer disallowed the claim on two grounds. Firstly, that the claim was not made in the original return nor did the assessee file the revised return. The second ground was that the claim was fictitious and the goodwill has been accounted as a balancing factor in the hands ... Goetze (India) Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) is confined to the powers of the assessing officer and accepting a claim without revised return. This is what Supreme Court observed in the said judgment while distinguishing the judgment in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner

Dy Comm of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 234/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 199(3)

37BA(2)(iii) were not full filled" 2. The brief facts are that the assessee has claimed TDS credit of Rs.68 Crores in the revised return of income filed on 27.05.2021. The return was processed u/s 143(1) vide Intimation dated 08.06.2022 wherein credit for TDS of Rs. 40.43 crore ... same is appearing in Form 26AS of AEML. The TDS credit has been claimed by the assessee in its original as well as revised return of income. The claim of TDS credit in respect of AEML was revised to Rs. 40,42,92,666 in the revised return of income

Dy Comm of Income Tax-14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 233/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 199(3)

ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi vs. Kamlesh Kumar Rathi, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 823/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 68

sale of land. (2) Whether Ld. CIT(A) is erred in law and on facts in allowing the claim of the assessee of filing revised return after getting final show cause incorporating the undisclosed income to the extent of Rs. 62,60,000/- and claiming the same as exempt ... estimates only whereas sufficient evidences, statement of the employee dealing with the properties and also the assessee himself accepting the same by filing revised return. (4) Whether Ld. CIT(A) is erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee was not confronted with the statement

ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi vs. Kamlesh Kumar Rathi, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 822/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.S. Minhas, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 68

Smt. Bijal Darshitbhai Pujara, Rajkot vs. The Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-1 (1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 292/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot16 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 139Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Income- tax Act, 1961 particularly when there is no case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particular and income declare in revised return was accepted. 3. Not following the decision of ACIT v. Ashok Raj Nath (19 ITR (trib) 70) of Delhi Tribunal, Bhavin Kumar M. Dagli (ITA No. 1179/Ahd/2011 ... ACIT (2014), particularly when in that case the department 4fitetsd" additional income in survey operation and then after the said assessee revised return of income and hence the facts are completely distinguished. All the grounds stated hereinabove are without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, delete

Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Pune vs. M/S Raviraj Ventures, Pune

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 667/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteincome Tax Officer, Vs M/S.Raviraj Ventures, Ward-6(3), Pune. 1 To 5, Millenium Star, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aagfr 3176 G Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.Cit Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement. : 15/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11, Dated 30.06.2022 Emanating From The Order Of The Acit, Dated 30.11.2018 Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit(A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts By Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Of Rs.1,59,55,025/- Levied By The Ao Towards Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income For Not Following Recognization Of Revenue As Per As-9, As Raviraj Ventures [R]

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

filed its original return u/s. 139(1) of the Act on 03/08/2016 declaring total income of Rs.NIL. After the search, assessee had filed revised return on 17/10/2016 declaring total income at Rs.4,61,02,130/-. After the search, the assessee filed return in response to notice u/s 153A declaring total ... been made by the AO and the AO has accepted the returned income. The LD.AR also submitted that the assessee had immediately filed revised return before the issue of notice u/s 153A. Hence, there is no concealment. 5 Raviraj Ventures [R] 4.1 Ld.AR relied on the following case-laws

Dy.CIT Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viral Alkalis Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1752/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2016-17

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 801A(7)Section 80ASection 80I

accounts audited only on 19.02.2018 and the audit report in form no 10CCB has been filed by assessee along with its revised return only on 19.02.2018, hence deduction w/s 80IA(4) of the Act is inadmissible to assessee as per the provisions of section 801A ... vide letter dated 23/03/2007 for manufacture of 30 MT per month potassium carbonate by using waste water from Vinati Organics as raw material. The revised return of income filed on 19/02/2018. In the revised return the assessee has claimed deduction u/s.80IA(4) alongwith it, it has filed audit report

Ajanta Pharma Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 519/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalajanta Pharma Ltd. 98, Charkop, Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aaaca5579P ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(2) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J. D. MistriFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

supra). “The question raised in this appeal relates to whether the appellant- assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. The assessment year in question was 1995-96. The return was filed on 30-11-1995 by the appellant for the assessment year ... 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

ITO, Ward- 34(1), New Delhi vs. Modern Papers, Delhi

ITA 4426/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4426/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 Ito, Vs. M/S. Modern Papers Ward-34(1), A-88, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi Phase-1, New Delhi Pan : Aaqfm2930H

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

assessee firm filed its original return of income on 29/11/2014 showing total income of Rs. 55,70,20,510/-. However, the assessee filed revised return of income on 20.02.2016 showing total income of Rs. 35,68,53,500/- thereby leading to a decrease of total income

Jardine Lloyd Thomposn India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT15(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6313/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

28/11/2013 declaring total income of 2 ITA 6313/Mum/2017 M/s Jardine Lloyd Thompson Pvt Ltd Rs.10,87,09,850/-. The assessee filed subsequently a revised return on 30/03/2015 where the assessee revised the claim of credit for taxes paid in UK. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section

Towers Watson India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3591/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhwillis Towers Watson Vs. The Dcit Central India Private Limited Circle – 8(3), Room No. 204, (F Orm Erly K Nown As T Ower S Wat S On I Nd Ia Pv T.L Td. ) Aaykar Bhavan 2 Floor, Tower B, Unitech Mumbai – 400 093 Business Park, South City-1, Sector 4, Gurgaon -122001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacg2955K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2015 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “General Ground 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax 8(3), Mumbai ('Learned Ao) In Determining The Total Taxable Income Of The Appellant For The Subject Ay At Rs.7,04,44,370 Instead Of The Amount Of Rs.1,14,98,477 As Reported Under Section 115Jb Of The Act, In The Return Of Income Filed By The Appellant. 2. Erred In Accepting The Contentions Of The Learned Ao Of Making A Reference Of The Appellant'S Case To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ii(8), Mumbai (Learned Tpo) Under Section 92Ca(1) Of The Act, Without Satisfying The Conditions Specified Therein

For Appellant: Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar

Section 115JSection 92CSection 92C(4)

Rs.5,95,86,858 being an additional service charge income received from AE, which was offered to tax and has been taxed in the revised return of income has not been considered while computing the transfer pricing adjustment Payment made for availing consultancy services 11. erred in upholding the learned ... which the income was first assessable, or (b) (b) One year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under sub-section

Vijayaraghavan Lakshmi, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 260/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2016-17 Mrs. Vijayaraghavan Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2) Lakshmi Aaykar Bhawan Ground Floor, Block-A Opp:L.B.Stadium Prince Villa, New No.15 Basheerbagh Rajamannar Street Hyderabad Teynampet Chennai-600 018 Tamilnadu

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.M.Mahidhar, Sr.AR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 156Section 54

return filed u/s. 153A. Referring to page 31 of the paper book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the revised return filed on 23.10.2018 for AY 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.1,81,12,950/-. Referring to page 32 to 34 of the paper book, he drew ... WITHDRAWN AND THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE ACQUIRED OR CONSTRUCTED WITHIN STIPULATED TIME LIMIT, THE AMOUNT SO WITHDRAWN IS OFFERED TO TAX IN THE REVISED RETURN FOR THE AY 2018-19 FILED ON 23.10.2018 AND TAXES PAID ON THE AMOUNT AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THIS YEAR ALONG WITH

Shilpa Prabhakar Kulkarni, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for stati...

ITA 387/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Shilpa Prabhakar Kulkarni, Dcit Centralized Processing 3 Neel Sagar, 1280 Prabhadevi Centre, Seaface Prabhadevi, Vs. Bengaluru-560 500. Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Brhpk 8129 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Chandni Shah & Kinjal Patel Revenue By : Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah & Kinjal PatelFor Respondent: Mr. A.N. Bhalekar, DR

Section 154Section 234BSection 234C

section 154 of the/Act. The only recourse purview of section 154 of the/Act. The only recourse available with the appellant was to file revised return available with the appellant was to file revised return available with the appellant was to file revised return and fill covet values of income ... appellant while filling return of income. Such omission/rectification can only be rectifie omission/rectification can only be rectified by filing d by filing revised return of income that too within the time allowed revised return of income that too within the time allowed revised return of income that too within

Shapoorji Pallonji Oil and Gas Private Limited, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed partly for statistical

ITA 2434/MUM/2022[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Shapoorji Pallonji Oil & Gas Pvt. The National Faceless Ltd., Assessment Centre, 41/44 Shapoorji Pallonji Centre, Vs. Mumbai. Minoo Desai Marg, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005. Pan No. Aaecc 9599 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Gautam Thacker Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 02/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Gautam ThackerFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

considering the total loss of Rs. December 2019 instead of considering the total loss of Rs. 14,80,17,785 as per the revised return of income filed by the 14,80,17,785 as per the revised return of income filed ... revised return of income filed by the Appellant on 22 March 2019. Appellant on 22 March 2019. The NaFAC erred in not complying with the specific directions The NaFAC erred in not complying with the specific directions The NaFAC erred in not complying with the specific directions

Kaur Kookies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-4, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

appeal are that in this case the assessee filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 2,40,88,622/- on 6.11.2017. Thereafter, revised return was filed on 21.06.2018 declaring loss of Rs. 2,40,84,958/-. The 3 case was selected for scrutiny assessment and the assessment

Hcl Comnet Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1113/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmahcl Comnet Limited Vs. Dcit, 806, Sidharth, Circle-11(1), 96, Nehru Place, Room No. 416, New Delhi C.R.Building, Pan : Aach9667H New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 254(2)

Supreme Court in the case of Goetze IndiaLtd. Vs CIT [284 ITR 223], the deduction could not be made without a valid revised return. Since in the instant case the return has not been revised within the meaning of section 139(5) of the I. T. Act, 1961 therefore

DCIT CC 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. World Sports (India) P . Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, CO of the assessee is allowed and departments appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5328/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Karan P. Unavekar (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 153BSection 92C

which the income was first assessable, or (b) One year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under sub-section

Sri. Bolar Jayaraj Shetty, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 186/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Pranav Krishna

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

submitted that, such claims were made without the knowledge of assessee by Mr. Nagesh Shastry. It was submitted that, Shri Nagesh Shastry filed revised return and all requisite password, etc. was kept with him and by giving the mobile Page 3 of 5 ITA Nos. 184 to 186/Bang/2023 number ... Nagesh Shastry only. It was submitted that the Mobile no. & email address given to the department in original return and revised return were different, which can be looked into so as to see the veracity of the assessee’s statement. The Ld.AR submitted that there was no fault of assessee

Sri. Bolar Jayaraj Shetty, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 185/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Pranav Krishna

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)