“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

Sri. Gandhinagara Narayana Harikrishna Rai, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1077/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

declaring total income of ITA Nos.1076, 1077 and 1078/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 6 Rs. 17,82,260/-. Further the assessee filed a revised return of income on 09.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 9,50,410/-. The case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Income ... order dated 19.2.2018, the CIT(Appeals) recorded these facts in para 5 of his order that Mr. Nagesh Shastry was instrumental in fling the revised return. However, the same facts and arguments in the penalty proceedings are not considered by the CIT(Appeals). In our opinion, it is proper

Sri. Gandhinagara Narayana Harikrishna Rai, Bengaluru vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1076/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Surendra Babu Sabbineni, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 326/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Advocate Kotha Hari PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

income of Rs.6,53,800/-. A search and seizure operation was conducted in the case of the assessee on 25.11.2011. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 25.11.2011 admitting income of Rs.22,31,37,160/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. Page ... Managing Director of Coastal Projects Ltd, a Private Ltd Company. On the basis of notice issued u/s. 153A, the assessee filed the revised return of income on 25.11.2011 declaring total income of Rs.22,31,37,160/- and the AO had accepted the returned income. Subsequently, the ld.PCIT invoked the provisions

Dy.Comm of Income Tax -Central Circle- 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Upl Djai Power Ltd (Now Known As Beil Infrastructure Ltd, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the

ITA 1958/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Dy. Cit, Central Circle-6(3) M/S. Upl Djai Power Ltd. Room No. 1903, 19Th Floor, (Now Known As Beil Infrastructure Air India Building, Nariman Point, Ltd.) Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Plot No. 9701-16, Cidc Estate, Ankleshwar, Gujarat-393 002

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 127(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessee company filed its return of income for the impugned year dated 24.09.2012, declaring total income of Rs.1,62,870/- and filed its revised return of income dated 29.03.2014, declaring total loss of Rs.12,83,44,563/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order dated ... learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) for the Revenue contended that the assessee has filed its revised return dated 29.03.2014 filed in the name of the erstwhile company subsequent to the amalgamation. The ld. DR further contended that the assessee’s communication to the A.O. found in pages

Shree Sai Sagar Consultants, Mumbai vs. DCIT -CC-5(4), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2191/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Bhatt & Jitali GandhiFor Respondent: Shri R.N. D‟Souza

Section 143(3)Section 68

Appellant filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring loss of INR 45,50,614/-. Thereafter, the Appellant filed revised return on 30.11.2012 declaring income of INR 13,12,025/-. The case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hikal Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3517/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharish & Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 3(1)(2), Vs. M/S Hikal Ltd Room No. 607, 6Th Floor 717/718, Maker Aayakar Bhavan, Chambers V, Mumbai – 400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach0383A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt .Madhumalti Gosh.Cit Dr Respondent By : Sri.Sanjay Parikh.Ar Date Of Hearing 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai, Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt .Madhumalti Gosh.CIT DRFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjay Parikh.AR

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 154

processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny under Hikal Ltd.Mumbai. CASS and the assessee has filed the revised return of income. Subsequently the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. In compliance to notice, the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared ... income under section 2(24). APOLLO TYRES LTD. v. CIT [2002] 255 ITR 273 (SC) distinguished. (iii) That since the time to file the revised return had lapsed, for claiming that the incentive subsidies in question be treated as capital receipts instead of revenue receipts as claimed in the original

Cvmv Reddy'S Educational & Public Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ACIT Exemptions Ward 4, Chennai

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

ITA 992/CHNY/2022[-]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 992, 1033 & 1034/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 12ASection 270A

assessee filed its return of income on 24.08.2019 declaring the total income at ₹. NIL. 6 I.T.A. Nos.992, 1033 & 1034/Chny/22 Subsequently, the assessee filed the revised return of income on 08.07.2020 declaring the total income at ₹.nil. Thereafter, the case was selected for compulsory scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings

Prince Property Management Services, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Circle 10(2), Chennai

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

ITA 328/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.328/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prince Property Management Services, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, New No. 61, Old No. 17, Ormes Road, Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010. Chennai. [Pan:Aaifp9177F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2023 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 11.03.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 On 30.11.2014 Declaring Total Income Of ₹.1,87,99,770/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

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

facts was available before the Assessing Officer other than what the assessee had already disclosed before the officer by way of a revised return during the course of original assessment. It may be mentioned that each assessment proceeding is independent case even if the assessee remains the same. In simple

Cvmv Reddy'S Educational & Public Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Che - W - (115) (93), Chennai

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

ITA 1034/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 992, 1033 & 1034/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 12ASection 270A

Cvmv Reddy'S Educational & Public Charitable Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Che - W - (115) (93), Chennai

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

ITA 1033/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 992, 1033 & 1034/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 12ASection 270A

M/S. Shiva Ferric Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

The appeal is allowed

ITA 380/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Shiva Ferric Pvt. Ltd., No. 193, 4Th Floor, Shiv The Principal Sadan Outer Ring Road, Commissioner Of B. Narayanapura, Income-Tax [Central], Bangalore – 560 016. Bengaluru. Vs. Pan: Aaics4564L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-01-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24-01-2023 Order Per Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 5Section 68

assessee company had originally filed its return of income on 29/09/2012, declaring an income of Rs. 1,64,14,213/- and thereafter, a revised return of income was filed on 03/12/2012 declaring the very same income that was declared in the original return of income. The assessee's case

Kishori Dwarkanath Pandey, Mumbai vs. ITO-32(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2558/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 2558/मुं/ 2022 ("न.व. 2014-15) Kishori Dwarakanath Pandey, 604, Dahisar Jaya Apartment Chsl, Ramkumat Thakur Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai – 400 068. Pan: Ahspp-7195-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer -32(2)(2),Mumbai, Room No.304, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East) Mumbai – 400 051 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Prateek Jha & Prayag Jha ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/01/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: S/Shri Prateek Jha & Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 54FSection 69A

assessment proceedings. Admittedly, the claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act was not made in the return of income or by way of revised return of income. 3.1 The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that during scrutiny assessment proceedings the assessee furnished copies of sale invoices issued

The Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1327/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Freyssinet Prestressed Concrete Co. Dy. Cit, Circle-6(2) Ltd. Mumbai 6-B, Sterling Centre, Vs. 6Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Vranda U. Matkarni

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

structures & prestressing, etc. The assessee filed its return of income dated 30.09.2010, declaring total income at Rs.3,92,99,157/-. The assessee filed its revised return of income dated 30.03.2012, declaring total income at Rs.4,05,90,086/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order

Dhanpat Raj Khatri - HUF, Jaisalmer vs. ITO, Jaisalmer

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

ITA 8/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Dhanpat Raj Khatri Vs The Ito Khatri Pada, Jaisalmer Jaisalmer

Section 148Section 68

assessment order is not according to law. 2. The AO has charged tax u/s 68 on Rs.3,39,631/- (which is shown in revised return) without considering the facts of case and without any specific notice is income from undisclosed sources is not according to provisions ... speculative business and notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2018 after recording reasons. In response to notice u/s 148 the assessee had declared revised return of income of Rs. 4,91,791/- During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to explaining source of such difference income shown

Abhinav International Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of appellant bearing Appeal

ITA 7822/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

loss account which was a capital loss, same was contrary to basic principles of accountancy - Held, yes -Whether since assessee did not file revised return for same voluntarily but had filed revised return after Assessing Officer confronted assessee and they were asked to explain claim of loss in question

DCIT - CC-3(2), Mumbai vs. Aarti Drugs Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2503/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Nagar a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Srivastav

Section 139Section 14ASection 250Section 32(1)Section 801ASection 80I

entertain a fresh claim made by the assessee, even if such a claim was not made in return of income or by way of revised return of income. Thus, we find no infirmity in the impugned order admitting the additional ground filed by the assessee. 37. It is further evident ... however, objected to the claim on the basis that the said claim was neither made in the original return of income nor in the revised return of income and the same cannot be entertained now. Therefore, from the above, it is evident that the AO has not drawn any adverse

DCIT Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S Everest Industries Ltd., Delhi

ITA 655/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, D.R

Section 43(1)

assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the ITA No.7792/M/2019 & ors. 5 M/s. Everest Industries Ltd. assessee filed revised return of income on 31.03.2013 declaring total income at Rs.Nil under the normal provisions and book profit at Rs.13,90,35,231/- which was subjected to scrutiny ... allowed, the appellant company had claimed foreign exchange fluctuation loss amortized in books during instant year amounting to Rs.34,13,340/- in the revised return. The facts and circumstances in AY 2009-10 and AY ITA No.7792/M/2019 & ors. 10 M/s. Everest Industries Ltd. 2011-12 were same and there

Everest Industrial Ltd., Noida vs. Dy CIT Circle-1, Thane

ITA 7792/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap, D.R

Section 43(1)

M/S.Roads and Bridges Development Corpn of Kerala Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Kochi

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

ITA 33/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Remya S Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(2)Section 72(1)

control of the Company. Thereafter, the Company has filed the return along with tax audit report within the permitted due date of filing-the revised return. Hence, there has been no omission on the part of the company to file the return before due date u/s 139(1) and consequently ... income. The return was invalidated by Centralised Processing Centre on account of failure to enclose the tax audit report. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 30/03/2018 along with tax audit report showing a loss of Rs.17,38,77,509/-. The assessee filed another revised return on 31/03/2018 admitting

Gram Utthan, Kendrapara vs. ACIT, Exemption Circle, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 12/CTK/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.12/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Gram Utthan, Vs Acit, Exemption Circle, At/Po: Pimudi, Rajakanika, Bhubaneswar Kendrapara-754220 Pan No. :Aaatu 1223 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 80G

date of creation of the assessee trust. It was the submission that when this mistake was noticed the assessee had attempted to file revised return on two occasions but the same were rejected as invalid as the returns were filed beyond the statutory time limit provided. Consequently, the assessee