“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

Sms Paryavaran Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-9(1), New Delhi

ITA 5293/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Sms Paryavaran Ltd., Vs Dcit, Sms House, E 1/4, Sector-7, Circle-9(1), Rohini, New Delhi-110085. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacs2177F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Abhishek Bose, Adv. Respondent By Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2022

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Delhi dated 28.05.2018. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Return declaring Nil income was filed on 30.09.2011 and revised return was filed on 10.02.2012 declaring Nil income (after claiming deduction U/S-80IA of Rs.4,73,33,948/-). Necessary Assessment Order was passed ... rise to the present appeal are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2011, declaring NIL income. Subsequently, the assessee has filed a revised return on 10.02.2012 declaring NIL income. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The case was selected

Jammu and Kashmir Projects Construction Corporation Limited, Srinagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Srinagar

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

ITA 4/ASR/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

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

Section 139Section 154Section 250(6)

action of denying the rectification under section 154 and to allow a claim of Rs.63,72,588/- made by the assessee in the revised return.” 2. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 199 days wherein, assessee has stated that the aftermath of abrogation of special constitutional ... advert the fact of the case. The assessee has filed the return of income u/s 139 on dated 01.12.2006 for A.Y.2006-07. Later on, revised return was filed on 17.03.2008 in which the appellant had claimed expenses/loss on account I.T.A. No.04/Asr/2020 3 Assessment Year: 2006-07 of brick and tile factory

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Tinsukia, Tinsukia vs. M/S. Brooke Bond India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 99/GTY/2000[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Dec 2022AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble]

For Appellant: Smt. Harshita Jain on behalf of NituFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80G

27/03/1996. With regard to the ground of appeal, the facts are that the assessee has filed a revised return wherein it has claimed deduction u/s 80G & 80HHC of the Act of Rs.1,16,090/- and Rs.7,14,163/-. The issue before us relates to the claim made

Perfect Reallnfra ( India) P Ltd, Khandwa vs. ACIT, Khandwa

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

ITA 188/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 44A

under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law the National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in confirming the rejection of the revised return of the contention that a belated return cannot be revised. The appellant prays that revised return be accepted and set off of loss ... quashed.” 3. The original return was filed by the assessee on 30.03.2015 belatedly declaring a total income of Rs.67,59,620/-. The revised return of income was filed on 26.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.49,52,481/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and order under Section

Rajesh Mohanlal Bora, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (1), Nashik

ITA 1609/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1609/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rajesh Mohanlal Bora, 401, Rushiraj House, Thatte Nagar, College Road, Nashik – 422 005 Pan : Abcpb5526F . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Ito Ward- 1(1) Nashik . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा/ Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/08/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Dove Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 29/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Income Tax Officer 1(1), Nashik [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201Section 250Section 40Section 40A(3)

income placed at page 40-42 of the paper book, whereby we find that, while arriving the revised income for the purpose of revised return filed on 31/10/2015, the appellant has suo-motu disallowed an amount of ₹5,66,437/- paid towards finance charges to M/s. Shriram City Union Finance

Praveen Sambhaji Raorane, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Thane

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

ITA 2589/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90Section 91

intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act passed by Ld. CPC was on 17.06.2020. The assessee thereafter filed revised Form-67 along with revised return of income for AY 2018-19 on 18.07.2020 wherein the figure of Rs. 3,55,960/- being the foreign tax credit was correctly claimed ... need not take cognizance of section 154 proceedings which had happened subsequent to the filing of appeal. Though, the revised return in the instant case had been filed by the assessee beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 139(4) of the Act altogether with the revised Form-67, the grievance

Greenlam Industries Limited, Tinsukia vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Tinsukia, Tinsukia

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 402/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 25Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 31(3)(a)

284ITR 323 (SC), has dealt with the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim made before him, otherwise than through revised return filed on time and held that such claim cannot be entertained by the Assessing Officer. However, while concluding, the Apex Court made it abundantly clear that

Income Tax Officer, Ward - Udaipur, Agartala vs. Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Agartala

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

ITA 297/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

assessment order only on the basis of the submission of the assessee at the appeal stage that no notice u/s 143(2) on the revised return was issued whereas the assessee failed to bring into the knowledge of the Assessing Officer during the continuation of the proceeding ... original return that the assesee filed a revised return subsequent to the receiving of notice u/s 143(2) on the original return thereby complying to the proceeding initiated u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. (2) For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in annulling the assessment order only

The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Thrrissur vs. Manjilas Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd., Thrissur

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 34/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

income ofRs.32,65,500. Subsequently, a notice u/s. 148 was served on the assessee. The assessee in response to notice submitted to consider the revised return to be the return filed in response to notice u/s. 148. During the year under consideration, the assessee has claimed depreciation ... furnished any return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) and discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish revised return. Such revised return can also be filed in respect of return which was filed in pursuance of the notice under sub-section (1) of section

Manjilas Agro Food Pvt.Ltd., Thrissur vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2), Thrissur

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 33/COCH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Manjilas Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd, Thrissur vs. Thacit, Circle-1(1 ), Thrissur

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 32/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri C V Varghese, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Mr Ashok Madhav Rao, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1288/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Assistant Director Of Income Tax, Mr. Ashok Madhav Rao Centralized Processing Flat No. 103, Dheeraj Centre, Dashan 2, Kokan Nagar, Vs. Jogeshwari (East), Mumbai- Income Tax Department, 400 060 Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 500 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afirp8784B Assessee By : Ketan Ved Revenue By : Shri Ujjawal Chavan Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2022

For Appellant: Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Chavan SR AR

Section 143(1)Section 90

India. The assessee filed his return of income on 30th August, 2018, which was revised on 30th March, 2019. In the revised return of income assessee declared the salary received in Netherlands and claimed relief under Section 90 of the Income

Shri Dattatrya Jagannath Aware, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle, Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 620/PUN/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Bhandari that there is no basis for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as the income declared in the revised return of income was accepted by the AO in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. In view of the same, let us examine ... According to the AO, the assessee declared an additional income of Rs.2,06,48,600/- and included the same in the revised return of income which was filed on 31-03-2018. Under compulsory scrutiny proceedings, the AO issued notices

Diamines and Chemicals Limited, Baroda vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 219/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT/D.R. &

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessee filed its Return of Income on 14.10.2010 declaring an income of Rs. 12,66,54,590/-. A Revised Return of Income on 31.08.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 12,64,47,550/-. Thereafter another Revised Return was filed on 11.01.2012 declaring total income

Diamines & Chemicals Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT- 1, Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1472/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT/D.R. &

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

Sambros Tex Global Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle I, Coimbatore

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

ITA 725/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sathyanarayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee filed copies of original return of income for assessment year 2007-08, revised return of income for assessment year 2007-08, Form No.3CA & 3CD, assessee’s audit objection for assessment year 2009-10. The ld.counsel for the assessee ... took us through the revised return, which is enclosed at page 32 of assessee’s paper-book, wherein total income declared was Rs.59,87,670/- and also shown us that in the return of income at column 23, this Rs.1 crore was already included in return for assessment year

Reliance Industrial Investments and Holdings Limited (Successor of Reliance Petro Investment Limited), Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2515/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2017-2018

Section 10Section 115JSection 14A

under normal provisions of the Act and book loss of Rs 71,69,319/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The assessee filed revised return of income on 07/03/2018 declaring loss of Rs 57,20,734/- under normal provisions of the Act and book loss

Sanhita Ghosh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-29(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 557/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 68

facts of the case in holding the assessment made on original return filed on 26.97.2016 as valid although assessee filed a revised return of income on 31.03.2018. 1. AY 2016-17 Sanhita Ghosh 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of assessment passed under

Symantec Software Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 14(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 565/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & M/S Symantec Software Vs. Dcit, Circle – 14(3)(2) Solutions Pvt Ltd Mumbai. Unit No. 1801, 18Th Floor The Capital, Plot No. 70, G Block, Bkc, Mumbai – 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2624B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Nikhil Tiwari.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Rignesh Das.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Hon’Ble Tribunal Has Passed Ma No. 73 & 74/Mum/2021 In The Common Order Of Ita Nos. 565/Mum/2016 & 1906/Mum/2017 Dated 15.09.2017. The Ld. Ar Submitted That The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Ma Has Considered The Assessee’S

For Appellant: Shri.Nikhil Tiwari.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Rignesh Das.DR

filed the return of income on 29.11.2011 disclosing a total income of Rs. 9,95,45,172/- and also the assessee has filed the revised return of income on 28.03.2013 disclosing a total income of Rs. 9,95,45,172/-.Subsequently the AO has made reference

Malabar Cements Ltd, Walayar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Palakkad

ITA 256/COCH/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnan Unny, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 250

return of income electronically as per details given below. Assessment Date of filing Income Date of filing Income year original return declared – Rs. revised return declared