“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

Veolia India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 26(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6011/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2013-14 Veolia India Pvt Ltd. Acit B-1, Marble Arch, 9, Prithvi Vs Circle – 26 (1) Raj Road, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aabcv7389R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 92Section 92B

course of assessment proceedings the assessee had claimed the deduction, which was not accepted by Assessing Officer as it was not claimed through revised return under section 139 (5) of the Act. He submitted, the reasoning of the Assessing Officer was also upheld by DRP while deciding the issue ... authorities have refused to entertain assessee’s claim simply on the ground that the assessee had not claimed the deduction by way of a revised return of income. Now, it is fairly well settled that a claim not made by the assessee in the return of income due to inadvertence

Cma Cgm Sa, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commm of Income Tax (International Taxationa)-2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1820/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1820/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) बिधम/ Cma Cgm Sa Dcit, (International C/O Cma Cgm Agencies Taxation) Circle-2(1)(1) Vs. Room No. 1713, 17Th (India) Pvt. Ltd. One International Center, Floor, Air India Building, Tower 3, 8Th Floor, Senapati Nariman Point, Mumbai- Bapat Marg, Elphinstone 400021. Road West, Mumbai- 400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc9048G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rajesh Poojari/Jasmin Amalsadvala Revenue By: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Final Assessment Order Dated 19/05/2021, Passed Under Section 143(3) R/W Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), Pursuant To The Directions Dated 12/05/2021, Issued By The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel (“Ld. Drp”) Under Section 144C(5) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year 2018–19. 2. In This Appeal, Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “General 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Inr 46,94,25,922/- As Against Revised Income Of Inr 52,35,195/- As Per Revised Computation Submitted By The Appellant During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings;

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Poojari/JasminFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 44B

30th Nov 2018 which is well before the due date prescribed u/s139 (1) of the Act and further the assessee has not filed the revised return of income. Therefore, according to AO, without filing a revised return of income, the claim cannot be entertained by him in view ... TAXMAN 1(2006) wherein it has been held that for making a new claim for deduction before AO, an assessee has to file a revised return making the claim and not otherwise. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 26. According to Ld. AR, these grounds are relating to non- taxability

Shuaib Ahmed, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 65(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 7782/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, S.M.C.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. D. R

Section 144Section 147Section 148

under:- “2. The assessee is individual and as a sequel to the search and seizure operation was conducted on his premises, he filed revised return. The Assessing Officer framed assessment under section 144 of 8 I.T.A. No. 7782/Del/2019 the Act on the basis of best judgement. The Commissioner of Income

Jitf Urban Infrastructure Services Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi

ITA 6632/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6632/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16 M/S. Jitf Urban Infrastructure Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Services Limited Tax 28, Shivaji Marg, West Delhi, Circle 13(2), Central Revenue P.O: Ramesh Nagar Building Room No. 316A 3Rd Floor, New Delhi- 110015 Pan : Aaccj4785G I.P.Estate, New Delhi-110002

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2

Income Tax [2006 284 ITR 323 SC] as there is no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has partly given relief to the assessee by restricting disallowance ... Delhi 12 Act, though both were not part of the original return and claim were rested during assessment by a letter only and not revised return. 12. Relevant here is to reproduce the operative part of the judgement dated 03.08.2015 at para 3(k) being part of part

DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jitf Urban Infrastructure Services Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 6423/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2

Ranju Dhingra, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Meerut

In the result, in the aforesaid terms, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5150/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Sankalp Malik, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Ld.Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

mention here that the Assessee in her original return of income had shown the income of Rs.10,000/- from other sources, while in the revised return filed on 21.03.2014, the same has been concealed. 2.2 The Assessee also sought the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating proceedings

Delhi Transport Corporation Employees Superannuation Pension Trust, New Delhi vs. DCIT (E), Circle- 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 454/DEL/2018[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Ms Avnish Ahlawat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR

again on 20.03.2005 separately for all the three years and therefore, was entitled to refund for the year 1999-2000 for which revised return was admittedly filed with the original certificate. 3. Because there was no dispute on the issue that revised return was not filed within time nor there ... certificate had been filed by the assessee. Before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Counsel of the assessee claimed that a letter with revised return for assessment year 1999-2000 had already been filed by the assessee on the instructions of the Department along with necessary documents

Shri Suresh Mal Lodha, 537-38, Mahima Trinity, New Sanganer Road, Swej Farm, Jaipur vs. ACIT Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 968/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahenda Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 30-03-2010 at a total income of Rs.80,56,970/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised return on 31-03-2011 declaring income of Rs.1,03,90,360/-. Hence, the case of the assesee was completed ... salary from Essar Investment Ltd. and claimed interest u/s 24(b) of Rs.1,50,000/- on self occupied property. The AO noted that in revised return the assessee declared income from house property, interest from SURESH MAL LODHA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR FDRs and consultancy fees also. According

Vulloju Sujatha, Siddipet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Siddipet

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

ITA 958/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Vulloju Sujatha Vs. Income Tax Officer Siddipet Ward-1 Pan:Auhpv5679 Siddipet (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Kprr Murthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.01.2019 Of The Learned Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 61 Days In Filing Of This Appeal For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Along With An Affidavit. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Application Filed Along With The Affidavit & After Hearing Both The Sides, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, DR

Section 143(2)Section 44ASection 69ASection 80CSection 80D

assessee is an individual and is engaged in jewellery business. She filed her Page 1 of 8 ITA No 958 of 2019 Vulloju Sujatha revised return of income on 28.12.2015 declaring total income at Rs.3,07,850/- after claiming deduction u/s 80C and 80DDB. The case was selected for scrutiny

Income Tax Officer 17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Maharashtra Mantralaya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2687/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Akruti ShethFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

Thereafter, the The Maharashtra Mantralaya Co–operative Credit Society Ltd. ITA no.2687/Mum./2022 ITA no.2686/Mum./2022 ITA no.2685/Mum./2022 assessee filed its revised return of income on 24/06/2015, whereby total income was declared at Rs. Nil, after claiming a deduction of Rs. 2,87,10,285, under section

Income Tax Officer 17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Maharashtra Mantralaya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2686/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Akruti ShethFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

Income Tax Officer 17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. The Maharashtra Mantralaya Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2685/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Akruti ShethFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 250Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

Sushil Bansal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/DEL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143Section 234Section 234BSection 271Section 69Section 69A

letter in which the assessee added Rs. 88 lacs. It was further stated that since the income tax portal is not accepting the revised return of income for want of tax, therefore, the income is revised through the letter. 10. This prayer of the assessee was dismissed ... 234B of the Act. The undisputed fact is that vide email dated 09.11.2020 the assessee made it clear that he wanted to file a revised return to include Rs.88 lacs since the portal is not accepting the return for want of payment of tax. It was also made it clear

Sushil Bansal, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2748/DEL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143Section 234Section 234BSection 271Section 69Section 69A

Bhaskar Dutta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation 1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1869/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 89

allowing relief claimed u/s 89/90 of the Act in a sum of Rs.25,43,643/- holding that Form 67 filed before filing revised return was out of time and thus not valid such. Such action being erroneous, unlawful and untenable, it is prayed, that the order as passed be quashed ... within the due date. However, Form 67 in support of claiming foreign tax credit was filed by the assessee along with revised return of income on 31.05.2021. 12. Undisputedly, assessee’s claim of foreign tax credit was rejected both by CPC and first appellate authority, firstly, on the ground that

ACIT(Central)-1, Bhopal vs. M/S. Bansal Construction Work (P) Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 822/IND/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER The ACIT, Central-I, Bhopal

For Appellant: Shri Anil Khabya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 801Section 80ISection 92Section 92BSection 92E

claimed deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act of Rs. 15,39,20,130/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 24-12-2015 at the same total income, however, in the said return it claimed credit of self-assessment ... original return. As the assessee paid self-assessment tax of Rs. 4,50,00,000/- after filing of original return, so assessee revised return to claim credit of this amount. 3.1 Thereafter, CPC, Bangalore processed the original return on 08-12- 2016 and disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 80IA

Tirumani Investment Private Limited ( Formerly Baccate Securities and Marketing Private Limited), Kolkata vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-13(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2130/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.2130/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Tirumani Investment Private Limited (Formerly Baccate Securities & Marketing Private Limited)…...…..…Appellant A.C Bhuteria & Co., 2, India Echange Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaacb6491K] Vs. Dcit, Circle-13(2), Kolkata ......…..…...................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 12, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 9, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.08.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Order Dated 29Th August 2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short, Cit(A)) Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Erroneous So Far It Relates To Adjudication Of Ground 1 Raised In Appeal. Ground 1 Raised In Appeal Is Purely A Question Of Law While The Cit(A) Had Erred In Dealing With & Adjudicating The Same As A Question Of Fact.

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

expressly recorded that "the assessment is completed considering the original return of income submitted by the assessee...without dwelving into the details of revised return and reason thereof...", and therefore, the question of non- acceptance of Or interference with the particulars of the revised return by the A0 does ... arise. 4 For that further & in any event & without prejudice to above, once a revised return is lawfully filed, the original return must be taken to have been withdrawn and to have been substituted by a fresh return for the purpose of assessment and therefore, the income declared

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R

Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

software. For the year under consideration, original return of income was filed on 30.11.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 8501,13,54,830. A revised return of income was filed on 31.3.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 8456,46,03,950. Notice under section 143(2) was issued and served

M/S Infosys Ltd, Bangalor E vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R

Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

Kamal Kapur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-63(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3299/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmakamal Kapur, Vs. Acit, 124, Hans Bhawan-1, Bahadur Circle-63(1), Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaapk9335L Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Sr. Adv Shri V. Rajkumar, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Yamini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2023

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini, Sr. DR

original return and the details of the long term capital gain were enclosed. However, after realizing certain mistake the assessee had filed revised return declaring income of Rs. 63,30,610/- and long term capital gain of Rs. 23,57,880/-. There was a typographical mistake in the computation ... LTCG on debentures of Deutsche Investments India Pvt. Ltd attached with the revised return in as much as the cost of acquisition was taken at Rs. 1,01,000/- as against the correct sum of Rs. 10,10,000/- and fresh calculation of capital gain and computation of income