← 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
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
89
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
84
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
76
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

Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Warangal vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Warangal

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 999/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण अपीलधर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

loss has to be carried forward. Learned CIT(A) further observed that the final computation of income was done on the basis of the revised return and, therefore, the learned Assessing Officer cannot preclude the assessee to carry forward the current year losses. 11. Reasoning given by the learned

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Warangal vs. Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Warangal

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1008/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / निर्धारण अपीलधर्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / वर्ा / A.Y.

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

loss has to be carried forward. Learned CIT(A) further observed that the final computation of income was done on the basis of the revised return and, therefore, the learned Assessing Officer cannot preclude the assessee to carry forward the current year losses. 11. Reasoning given by the learned

Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 93/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.93/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Vs. The Acit, [Now Known As Shriram Finance Ltd.], Corporate Circle 6(1), Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Lady Chennai. Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. [Pan:Aaacs7703H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 30.11.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 On 29.09.2018 Admitting Total

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Rajeev Menon, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 43B

income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 29.09.2018 admitting total 2 T.A. No.93/Chny/23 income of ₹. 1106,27,45,010/-. The assessee filed revised return of income on 31.10.2018 admitting total income of ₹.1075,29,19,300/-. The DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru processed the return of income filed ... assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) – 15, Chennai on 10.04.2019. The appeal is pending. The ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru processed the revised return of income filed on 30.03.2019 and issued intimation under section 143(1) of the Act dated 23.03.2020. In the intimation, the ACIT, CPC, Bengaluru

Ntt Data Information Processing Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 293/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

total income assessed as per the original return filed by the Appellant for the AY 2017-18 and not taking into consideration the revised return filed by the Appellant while determining the total taxable income in the final assessment order issued to the Appellant

Mr. Sridhar Murthy S, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1175/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Sridhar Murthy S Vs The Income Tax Officer Karle Zenith, 100 Ft Kemapura Nfac, Delhi Main Road, Kasaba Holbli Nagavara Village Bengaluru 560043 Pan – Awzps8682D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri N. Rama Raju, Ca Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 27.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Nfac, Delhi/Cit(A)’S Order Dated 28.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Follows: - “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit(A) , Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities On Facts & Circumstances Of Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Itself Liable To Be Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.2,19,796/- Under The Provisions Of Section 270A Of The Act Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri N. Rama Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)

immediately withdrawn on the basis of proper advice by the new consultant who handled the penalty proceedings in the instant case by filing the revised return for the Assessment Year 2020-2021. The penalty proceedings concluded in the instant case have no legs to stand and is liable ... learned Assessing completely erred in law in taking cognizance of the return filed for the Assessment Year 2019- 2020 without taking into consideration the revised return filed for the Assessment Year 2020-2021 withdrawing the said loss. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in not observing 3 Shri Sridhar

Uni Design Jewellery Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

ITA 3006/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2016-2017
For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkarni
Section 10Section 115JSection 201Section 35ASection 43BSection 80Section 80G

taxable income of the Appellant holding that the Appellant could make revised claimed before the Assessing Officer only by way of filing the revised return of income by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Goetze (India ... that the CIT(A) has concluded that the Appellant has failed to provide any reason as to what prevented the Appellant from filing the revised return before issuance of scrutiny notice under section 143(2) of the Act. By filing the revised ITA. No.3006-3008/Mum/2022 Assessment Year

Rakhi Anant Sawant, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Cir 16(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 2912/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Tulsiyan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 68

confirmed the addition of Rs.9,29,529/- on account of professional fees without appreciating that assessment should have been made on the basis of revised return which was filed before notice was issued u/s 143(2) to the appellant. ITA Nos.2911 & 2912/M/2022 4 Ms. Rakhi Anant Sawant ... Rs.8,53,802/- made u/s 68 by the AO on account of difference in cash in hand shown in the original return and revised return without appreciating that assessment should have been made on the basis of revised return which was filed before notice was issued

Rakhi Anant Sawant, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Cir 16(1), Mumbai

ITA 2911/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Tulsiyan, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 68

confirmed the addition of Rs.9,29,529/- on account of professional fees without appreciating that assessment should have been made on the basis of revised return which was filed before notice was issued u/s 143(2) to the appellant. ITA Nos.2911 & 2912/M/2022 4 Ms. Rakhi Anant Sawant ... Rs.8,53,802/- made u/s 68 by the AO on account of difference in cash in hand shown in the original return and revised return without appreciating that assessment should have been made on the basis of revised return which was filed before notice was issued

Bla Power Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commm of Income Tax-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 1180/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 79

consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 06/11/2017, declaring a total loss of Rs.50,37,76,622. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 31/10/2019, declaring a total loss of Rs.55,74,26,854. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3178/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

progress/fixed assets?" 100. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assesee has made this claim only by way of a revised return and that no such claim was originally made by the assessee. It was also noted that the books maintained under the Companies Act also show

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3177/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

dated 29.02.2016. Notice u/s 148 of the I.T Act, 1961 was issued on 08.03.2016. In response to the same, the assessee submitted that the revised return of income filed on 21.04.2016 be considered as filed in response to the notice u/s.148. In this letter, he sought for the reasons

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3176/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and book profit of Rs.17,47,50,13,208/- u/s.115JB. The assessee filed revised return of income on 14.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.5,64,55,61,652/- under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and book profit

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3139/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

progress/fixed assets?" 100. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assesee has made this claim only by way of a revised return and that no such claim was originally made by the assessee. It was also noted that the books maintained under the Companies Act also show

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3137/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

dated 29.02.2016. Notice u/s 148 of the I.T Act, 1961 was issued on 08.03.2016. In response to the same, the assessee submitted that the revised return of income filed on 21.04.2016 be considered as filed in response to the notice u/s.148. In this letter, he sought for the reasons

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3136/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and book profit of Rs.17,47,50,13,208/- u/s.115JB. The assessee filed revised return of income on 14.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.5,64,55,61,652/- under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and book profit

Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3135/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 55A

under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and book profit of Rs.17,47,50,13,208/- u/s.115JB. The assessee filed revised return of income on 14.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.5,64,55,61,652/- under normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and book profit

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

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

Acc Ltd ( Formelry Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addll CIT, (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6638/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Limited V. Addl. Cit -Ltu (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement 29Th Floor, Center-1 Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit - Ltu-1 V. M/S. Acc Limited 29Th Floor, Center-1 (Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies Ltd.) World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Cement House, 121, M.K. Road Mumbai-400005 Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

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

DCIT(Ltu) - 1, Mumbai vs. Acc Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3246/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Ltd., V. Dcit – Range – 1(1) Mumbai {Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies, Ltd.,} Cement House, 121 M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit (Ltu)-1 V. M/S. Acc Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Cement House, 121 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

progress/fixed assets?" 100. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has made this claim only by way of a revised return and that no such claim was originally made by the assessee. It was also noted that the books maintained under the Companies Act also show

Acc Limited (Formerly Known As the Associated Cement Companies Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Addll. CIT, RG. 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3203/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Acc Ltd., V. Dcit – Range – 1(1) Mumbai {Formerly Known As The Associated Cement Companies, Ltd.,} Cement House, 121 M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit (Ltu)-1 V. M/S. Acc Ltd., 29Th Floor, Centre No.1 Cement House, 121 World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade M.K. Road, Churchgate Mumbai - 400005 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1507C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

progress/fixed assets?" 100. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has made this claim only by way of a revised return and that no such claim was originally made by the assessee. It was also noted that the books maintained under the Companies Act also show