← 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

Smt. Ritu Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6504/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Princy Singla, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 68

construction, without resorting to the capital gains account scheme, can be made till the date of belated return under section 139(4) or revised return under section 139(5) as the wordings used in section 54(2) is “section 139, and not section 139(1), which covers all sub-sections ... section 139”. Thus, where the assessee files belated return under section 139(4) or revised return under section 139(5) in respect of the assessment year in which he transfers old/existing house, he is entitled to deduction under section 54 to the extent of investment in new house upto

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -3, Srinagar vs. M/S Jyoti Limited, Srinagar

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

ITA 612/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250

reason escapement of income. The assessee, vide letter dated 25.03.2013, in response to the said notice, the assessee filed a revised return and the rent received was offered to tax as ‘income from house property’, as per I.T.A. No.612/Asr/2017 6 Assessment Year: 2014-15 the provisions of sections 22 r.w.s ... Palace, as business income. This position was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Act. However, on the reopening of the completed assessment, in the revised return, the income was offered as income from property, in accordance with the provisions of section 22 read with section 23 of the Act. This

Dahida Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited, Village: - Dahida, Dist.:- Amreli vs. The ADIT (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file revised return making such claim, its claim for deduction under section 80-IA is maintainable. Therefore, where assessee had filed return under section ... entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IA even if such claim was not made in original return but subsequently in revised return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com

Shree Antaliya Kheti Vikas Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited, Liliya Mota, Dist. Amreli vs. The ADIT (CPC), Bangaluru, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file revised return making such claim, its claim for deduction under section 80-IA is maintainable. Therefore, where assessee had filed return under section ... entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IA even if such claim was not made in original return but subsequently in revised return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com

Aliudepur Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited, Aliudepur Village, Taluka Lathi, Dist.: - Amreli-365430 vs. The ADIT (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 269/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file revised return making such claim, its claim for deduction under section 80-IA is maintainable. Therefore, where assessee had filed return under section ... entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IA even if such claim was not made in original return but subsequently in revised return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com

Anju Agast Srivats, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, (NFAC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1158/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Ms. Anju Agast Srivats Vs The Income Tax Officer No. 303. Sobha Orchid Nfac, Delhi Jakkur, Bengaluru 560064 Pan – Afsps6930E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain J. Ca Revenue By: Shri Sankarganesh K., Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.02.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Cit(A)/ Nfac, Delhi’S Order Dated 23.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-19. 2. The Solitary Issue Raised Is Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) Wherein He Had Denied The Foreign Tax Credit (Ftc).

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain J. CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K., Addl CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 250Section 90

noticed that foreign dividend income of USD 2720 received by the assessee was not declared in the return of income nor she had filed revised return. The assessee claimed that she had paid taxes on dividend income (foreign tax) and claimed credit for foreign tax credit by filing Form ... fide mistake and the said dividend income has already been taxed outside India. It is claimed that since the due date for filing the revised return of income was lapsed the assessee could not file the revised return of income. However, she recomputed the total income and filed Form

Atos India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the additional grounds

ITA 1795/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit-14(1)1), Atos India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Godrej & Boyce Complex, बनाम/ Mumbai Plant 5, Pirojshanagar, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400079 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaaco2461J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhanesh Bafna /Chandni Sha /Riddhi Maru /Kinjal Patel, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ 01.06.2022 & : 25.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: 1. The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 40Section 40(3)Section 48Section 4oSection 92C

I.T.A. No. 1795/Mum/2017 Atos India Pvt. Ltd. (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

Srf Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl CIT, New Delhi

In the result, this ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Ussrf Limited Vs. Acit Unitech Crest, Greenwood Range – 9, City Block – C, Sector – 45, Ltu, New Delhi Gurgaon – 122 003 Pan No. Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, Shri R. K. Kapoor C.A. Shri Ravi Kumar Revenue By Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit (Dr) Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi [For Short, Cit(A)] Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [For Short, 'The Act'] For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 92C

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the following claims made without filing the revised return were rightly not considered by the Assessing Officer and such claims can also not be entertained by the CIT(A): (i) the amount ... deduction of Rs.1,04,00,000/- paid to SRF Vidyalay and SRF Foundation for the reason that the claim was made without filing the revised return and that such a claim cannot be entertained in appellate proceedings by the CIT(A). 8. That on the facts and circumstances

Satreena Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

filing Form 67 which was never in place at the time of filing of return. (6) The Ld. Lower authorities erred in ignoring the revised returns which is held to substitute the original return. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company ... which as per the Central Processing Centre was mandatory to claim relief under section 90 of the Act. Thereafter the assessee filed a revised return on 20.09.2018 and also filed Form 67 alongwith it. The assessee failed to get any relief. Again the assessee filed rectification application under section

Vikas Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2755/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 151

1 ITA Nos. 2752 to 2755/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL

Vikas Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2754/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 151

1 ITA Nos. 2752 to 2755/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL

Vikas Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2753/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 151

1 ITA Nos. 2752 to 2755/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL

Vikas Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2752/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 151

1 ITA Nos. 2752 to 2755/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL

Prashanti Engineering Works P Ltd, Pithampur vs. The Asst.DCIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 171/IND/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of Return Under Section 139(1).

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

being heard. 4. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred Legal Ground in not considering the fact the appellant has filed revised return which was duly accepted by the Ld. CPC Bengaluru and due refund was granted without any modification. 5. The appellant craves leave to make

Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1303/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2023AY 2010-11
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(7)Section 250Section 801ASection 80I

return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act for A.Y.2010-11 on 30/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.429,82,41,920/-. Subsequently SCL filed revised return of income on 16/03/2012 declaring total income of Rs.428,83,81,880/-. The original assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 26/03/2013 determining

Shree Lunidhar Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd., Lunidhar, Taluka Kunkavav, Dist. Amreli vs. Assessing Officer (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 202/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 119Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80P

filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file revised return making such claim, its claim for deduction under section 80-IA is maintainable. Therefore, where assessee had filed return under section ... entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IA even if such claim was not made in original return but subsequently in revised return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society Ltd. (CPC) v. DCIT [2023] 146 taxmann.com

Zydus Healthcare Ltd, Gangtok vs. ACIT, Cir. 3(2), Gangtok

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 139/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Zydus Healhcare Limited,……..................Appellant (Successor To Zydus Healthcare Sikkim), 4Th Floor, ‘D’ Wing, Zudus Corporate Park, Scheme No. 63, Survey No. 536, Khoraj (Gandhinagar), Nr. Vaishnodevi Circle, Ahmedabad, Gandhinagar, Gujrat-382481 [Pan: Aaacg1895Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-3(2), Gangtok, Sikkim-737101 Appearances By: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Ca & Sonal Pandey, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 20, 2023 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 156Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Rs.2,20,370/- and adjusted total income under section 115JC(1) of Rs.413,26,99,626/-. Subsequently this return was revised by filing a revised return of income on 31.03.2015 showing adjusted total income under section 115JC(A) of the Income Tax Act at Rs.391

Smt. Sulochana Ramesh, Bengaluru vs. The ACIT, Central Circle- 2(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1120/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 139(9)Section 144Section 153CSection 249(4)(b)Section 294(4)

This includes an income of Rs 11,82,60,329/- as admitted by the appellant in her revised return of income, which was treated as non-est by the AO. In addition, the AO had made additions of Rs 13,56,62,052/-. In the appeal under consideration the appellant ... treated as return filed in response to notice u/s.153C and tax on the returned income was duly paid. The assessee had later filed a revised return u/s.153C and did not pay the tax on the revised income. The CIT(A) came to reject the appeal u/s.249(4). The Tribunal

Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed

ITA 2374/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri M Balaganeshvkvkla-1340@Eaqcbz@2021¼Fu-Oa- 2016&17½ Vkvkla-2374@Eaqcbz@2022 ¼Fu-Oa- 2017&18½ Tata Steel Limited Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street Fort Mumbai-400 001 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaact2803M Cuke Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax/Income-Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80GSection 90

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण eqacbZ ihB ßbZÞ eaqcbZ Jh fodkl voLFkh] U;kf;d lnL;],oa Jh ,e- ckyx.ks’k] ys

Padam Kumar Jain, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 17/RAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80G

sought to be evaded. The penalty was levied on enhanced income of Rs.20,500/ (being the difference in the original return u/s. 153A and revised return u/s.153A) and as increased by the undisclosed income of Rs.54,00,000/- which was detected during the course of assessment proceeding based