“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

M/S. T Bhimjyani Realty Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose with similar directions

ITA 1264/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1263 /मुं/ 2022 (िन.व. 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane, CIT-DR &

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 43B

adjustments based on Income Tax return and Tax Audit Report. In case the assessee has committed any error it is solely by way of revised return the error could be rectified. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition in so far as amount disallowed u/s. 43B of the Act Rs.63 ... error in punching at the time of filing of return, the right course of action available to the assessee was to file revised return of income. The assessee had sufficient time to file revised return, however, for the reasons best know to the assessee, the assessee choose not to correct

M/S. T Bhimjyani Warehouseing Cold Chain Pvt Ltd., Mumbai-51 vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose with similar directions

ITA 1263/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1263 /मुं/ 2022 (िन.व. 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Mane, CIT-DR &

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36Section 43B

M/S Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank, Dharwad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hubballi

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

ITA 611/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, C.A, S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D George, CIT (DR)

Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 36

right in allowing the fresh claim of the assessee during the course of appellate proceeding in the absence of revised return of income ignoring the judgment in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd Vs CIT 284 itr 323 (SC)." ITA Nos.611 & 720/Bang/2020 Page 25 of 27 23. The ld.DR submitted ... that the CIT(A) has accepted the claim of the assessee without revising return of income filed by him ignoring judgment in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., Vs. CIT reported in 284 ITR 323 (SC), therefore the CIT(A) is not justified in giving relief to the assessee, hence

M/S Toyota Kirloskar Motors (P) Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 150/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 40A(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

Aar Ess Exim Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Garg & Sh. N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 10ASection 10BSection 143Section 154

convinced and was of the firm belief that the only way to get this claim is by filling a revised return not by filing rectification application before CPC. 8. Before us the Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. 9. The DR fully supported

Nirmala Murli Relwani, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Mumbai

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

ITA 2094/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ratnesh Kumar AwasthiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90Section 91

individual. The assessee filed her original return of income under section 139(1) of the Act on 20/08/2019. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income under section 139(5) of the Act on 26/08/2020, declaring a total income of Rs. 60,58,060, along with the computation ... income and Form No.67 for claiming foreign tax credit. The revised return Nirmala Murli Relwani ITA no.2094/Mum./2022 filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation dated 08/03/2021 issued under section 143(1) of the Act, whereby the foreign tax credit of Rs. 11,79,796, claimed under section

DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Maharashtra vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 445/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdeputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Income Tax, Cc, 2(2) 1102, Parinee Crescezo, Old Cgo Building, G, Block, Plot No. 806, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road C38/39, Behind Mca, Mumbai – 400020 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Respondent .. Appellant M/S Vinati Organics Ltd Vs. Acit, Cc-2(2) 11Th Floor, 1102, Parinee Crescezo, G, Block, Plot No. C38/39, Behind Mca, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv6538K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(2)

Vinati Organics Ltd. AO is that the assessee failed to claim such incentive while filing the return of income u/s.139(1) or in the revised return of income. However various Court's have taken a view that such claims can be made by the assessee at any stage of appellate ... extent of Rs.3,20,66.861/. It is claimed that in the instant year, since the time limit of filing the second revised return u/s 139(5) was already lapsed, it could not be claimed. 9.6 During the appellate proceedings, the assessee has submitted the copy of the scheme and eligibility

M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue vide

ITA 402/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal

Section 143(2)

ACIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbaiq vs. M/S Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismis

ITA 2449/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit-14(1)(1), M/S. Kotak Mahindra Life Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Insurance Company Ltd Bhavan, M.K.Road Vs. 2Nd Floor, 12 Bkc, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 051 Pan No. Aaaco3983B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, Cit Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR

Section 14A

total income of return of income on 27.09.2018 declaring total income of ₹340,26,88,880/-. The assessee filed revised re The assessee filed revised return of income on turn of income on 27.11.2018. The revised return of income filed by the assessee 27.11.2018. The revised return of income filed ... assessee 27.11.2018. The revised return of income filed by the assessee selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income-tax selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Income 3 ITA NO.2449/MUM/2022 (AY 2018 M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Dy CIT CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 41/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh

Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ―G‖ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai

ITA 1935/MUM/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. J.D Mistry, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Singh

Section 115OSection 115QSection 2

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ―G‖ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Navin Flurine International, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is fully dismissed

ITA 6532/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 35Section 41(1)

claim of Assessee to treat the receipt of Rs. 51, 37, 56,129/- as capital receipt was mode by the Assessee in its revised return of income. Further the Ld. CIT (A) has ignored the fact that the Assessee has spent on construction of project as well as to earn ... that, the claim of Assessee to treat the receipt of Rs.51,37,56,129/ as capital receipt was made by the Assessee in its revised return of income. Further the Ld. CIT (A) has ignored the fact that the Assessee has spent on construction of project as well

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Dreamz Dwellers LLP (Legal Representative of M/S.Megacorp Developers Private Limited), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 2394/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. T. Shankar, CIT-DR

Section 56(2)(viib)

proceedings were pending. The last date for the assessment proceedings were pending. The last date for filing filing filing the the the revised revised revised returns returns returns was was was 31.03.2008, 31.03.2008, 31.03.2008, after after after the the the amalgamation order. amalgamation order. 4. A search and seizure proceeding

Vaishnavi Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 728/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

vide e-filing acknowledgement No. 294020451270911 declaring an income of Rs. 11,62,01,190/-. 2.3 Thereafter, the assessee had filed the revised return of income electronically on 14-102011 vide e-filing acknowledgement No. 307704771141011 declaring an income of Rs.11,37,56,640/-. 2.4 A search ... earlier order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A dated 24.03.2014 and as against returned income of Rs. 11,37,56,640/- as per revised return of income. Ld.AO while calculating the average investments for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, considered only those investments which yielded exempt

Vaishnavi Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 727/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

Vaishnavi Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 695/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

Mindteck (India) Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 211/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)

filed its original income tax return electronically for AY 2017-18 declaring a total income of Rs. 9,21,28,650. Subsequently a revised return was filed on 08.02.2019 declaring a total income of Rs.9,25,46,830. The tax liability of Rs 3,05,98,758, was discharged ... advance tax aggregating to Rs. 5,67,94,546, resulting in refund of Rs. 2,61,95,790. 2.4 The aforesaid revised return was picked up for scrutiny by the Assessing Officer under CASS. Notices were issued from time to time for which the Company duly replied. The Transfer Pricing

Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 404/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 404/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Sasken Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As The Deputy Sasken Communication Commissioner Of Technologies Ltd.), Income Tax, No. 139/25, Domlur Circle – 6(1)(1), Ring Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 071. Pan: Aaecs6424R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 15-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 31.01.2017 Passed By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. General:- The Learned Ao & The Drp Erred In Passing The Order / Directions In The Manner Passed By Them. The Orders Passed Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 133(6)Section 2(24)Section 92BSection 92C

long term capital loss of Rs. 87,49,969/-. Notice u/s 143(2) dated 08.08.2013 was issued. A revised return of income was filed on 26.3.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 43,57,97,090/- Page 7 IT(TP)A No. 404/Bang/2017 and long term capital loss

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 460/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)

effect to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Panel to allow the above expenditure after verifying the amount claimed in the original and revised return of income. 14 The learned AO has erred, in law and on facts, in disallowing one fifth ... conduct further enquiry without appreciating the fact that the amount of Rs. 1,46,60,167 was voluntarily disallowed by the Appellant in filing revised return of income and the Hon'ble Panel had issued directions to allow one-fifth of this expenditure after verifying the original and revised return

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Astra Zenca Pharma India Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 446/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S.It(Tp)A No. 460/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(11)