← 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

Soma Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT, (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1139/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2009-10 on 03/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.128,80,55,960/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143 ... record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2010-11 on 29/03/2012 declaring total income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and declared book profit

Soma Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT, (Central)-Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1138/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2010-2011
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2009-10 on 03/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.128,80,55,960/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143 ... record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2010-11 on 29/03/2012 declaring total income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and declared book profit

Soma Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT(Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1137/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 154Section 263

record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2009-10 on 03/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.128,80,55,960/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143 ... record. We find that assessee is involved in the activities of civil work by being a developer of infrastructure projects. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the A.Y.2010-11 on 29/03/2012 declaring total income of Rs.Nil after claiming deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and declared book profit

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 21762 OF 2017 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

M/S. Jindal (India) Ltd., West Bengal vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for the reasons given here in above

ITA 5250/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153A

rectified its mistake and claimed the aforesaid subsidies as capital receipt by filing a revised computation of income since the time limit for filing revised return had lapsed. The assessing officer, however, treated the interest subsidy and power subsidy as a revenue receipt and brought the same

M/S. Jindal (India) Ltd., West Bengal vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for the reasons given here in above

ITA 5249/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N.K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153A

rectified its mistake and claimed the aforesaid subsidies as capital receipt by filing a revised computation of income since the time limit for filing revised return had lapsed. The assessing officer, however, treated the interest subsidy and power subsidy as a revenue receipt and brought the same

M/S. Jindal (India0 Ltd., West Bengal vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for the reasons given here in above

ITA 5248/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 132Section 143Section 153Section 153A

rectified its mistake and claimed the aforesaid subsidies as capital receipt by filing a revised computation of income since the time limit for filing revised return had lapsed. The assessing officer, however, treated the interest subsidy and power subsidy as a revenue receipt and brought the same

Smt. Vineeta Kumar, C-13, Deepak Marg, M.D. Raod, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 317/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Oct 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 10(38)Section 250

securities. Clearly this cannot be allowed. The appellant has not claimed this loss in the return of income filed or even in the revised return. He, therefore, sustained the addition made by the AO. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Before ... solely for the reason that assessee has not claimed this loss in the return of income filed or even in the revised return. I find that assessee has placed on record the evidence of cost of acquisition of this land

ACIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Mahendra Singh Ratnawat, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 31/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Oct 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143Section 153ASection 68

153C cannot be interpreted to be a further innings for the AO and/or assessee beyond provisions of Sections 139 (return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that

ACIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Mahendra Singh Ratnawat, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 30/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Oct 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143Section 153ASection 68

153C cannot be interpreted to be a further innings for the AO and/or assessee beyond provisions of Sections 139 (return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Ratan Kanwar Ratnawat, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 323/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Oct 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143Section 153ASection 68

153C cannot be interpreted to be a further innings for the AO and/or assessee beyond provisions of Sections 139 (return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that

ACIT, Jaipur vs. Ratan Kanwar Ratnawat, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 322/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143Section 153ASection 68

153C cannot be interpreted to be a further innings for the AO and/or assessee beyond provisions of Sections 139 (return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that

Sonali Kiran Shivarkar, Pune vs. DCIT- Circle-7, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 1881/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1881/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sonali Kiran Shiv Arkar, The Deputy L/H Of Late Kiran Sopanrao Vs Commissioner Of Income Shivarkar, A-204, Ganga Tax, Cirlce-7, Pune. Savera, Shivarkar Road, Wanawadi, Pune – 411040. Pan: Aprps 3509 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune, Dated 11.09.2019 For The A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Erred In Law & Without Considering Facts & Submission Made, Claimed U/S 54F Amounting To Rs.24,72,272/- In Respect Of Investment In Second Residential House. The Appellant Prays That Deduction U/S 54F Be Allowed In Respect Of Second Residential House.” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Original Return On 18/11/2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,41,550/-. The Assessee Then Filed Revised Return On 27/03/2015 Declaring Total Income Of

Section 45Section 54F

Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed original return on 18/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs.2,41,550/-. The assessee then filed revised return on 27/03/2015 declaring total income of ITA No.1881/PUN/2019 for A.Y.2014-15 Sonali Kiran Shivarkar L/h of Late Kiran Sopanrao Shivarkar [A] Rs.26

Franklin Templeton Management (India) P.Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Range-6(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2046/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Franklin Templeton Dy. Cit–Range 6(3)(1) Management (India) P. Ltd. Room No.506, 5 Th Floor, 12Th& 13Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, India Bulls Finance Center, Vs. Tower–2, Senapati Bapat M.K. Road, Marg, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400013 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaact1609B Assessee By : Shri Farooq Irani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vrinda U Matkari, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri Farooq Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vrinda U Matkari, DR
Section 250Section 253Section 32(1)

return of income for AY 2012-13 whereas the Appellant has been claiming depreciation on goodwill since AY 2003-04 through rectification letters, revised return and original returns as applicable, after the Supreme court's decision in the case of C.I.T. Kolkata v Smits Securities ... selected for scrutiny and assessment orders has been passed. The assessee claimed depreciation on the amount of Goodwill for the first time in the revised return for assessment year 2011 – 12, however the claim was not allowed by the AO for the said year the issue was pending before

Anmol Arora, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-15, New Delhi

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

ITA 2114/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri N. K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)

filed by the assessee on 27.08.2015. A search was conducted on 16.03.2016. The assessee revised the return on 30.09.2016. On the basis of said revised return, the assessment was framed pursuant to 153A notice issued on 14.06.2016. The appellant filed his return of income for the assessment year under consideration ... Thereafter, on 30.09.2016 the appellant revised his return of income declaring his income at Rs.5,795,740/-. In the revised return of income, appellant had surrendered the amount of Rs. 47 lakhs (which was earlier claimed as exempt being from the purported sale of shares of M/s. Delta leasing

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Globus Spirits Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1522/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 under Section 139(1) of the Act declaring taxable income at Rs.11,00,40,460/-. A revised return was filed thereafter by the assessee revising the taxable income at Rs.7,39,31,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. The Assessing ... books and had claimed depreciation thereon. However, after realizing that the expenses so capitalized are of Revenue in nature, the assessee vide its revised return claimed the same as revenue expense and consequently reduced the depreciation claimed thereon. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has noted the following material facts

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Globus Spirits Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2275/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 under Section 139(1) of the Act declaring taxable income at Rs.11,00,40,460/-. A revised return was filed thereafter by the assessee revising the taxable income at Rs.7,39,31,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment. The Assessing ... books and had claimed depreciation thereon. However, after realizing that the expenses so capitalized are of Revenue in nature, the assessee vide its revised return claimed the same as revenue expense and consequently reduced the depreciation claimed thereon. The Id. CIT (Appeals) has noted the following material facts

Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(5), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1999/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2013-14 Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal, The Income-Tax Officer, D-143, Kaliyabid, Bhavnagar Vs Ward 1(5), Pan : Addpt 3030 F Bhavnagar अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 09.07.2018. 2. The Relevant Facts Of The Case Giving Rise To This Appeal Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Who Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Originally On 16.03.2014. Although The Said Return Was Originally Accepted Under Section 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short), The Assessment Was Subsequently Reopened By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Information Received From Investigation Wing Of The Income-Tax Department That The Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1,13,53,982/- Arising From The Sale Of Equity Shares Of Kgn Enterprise Ltd. For A Consideration Of Rs.1,13,87,902/- Claimed As Exempt In The Return Of Income Was Bogus & It Was Actually An Accommodation Entry. The Assessing Officer Accordingly Issued A Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act To Smt. Paramadevi Tekriwal Vs. Ito Ay : 2013-14 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jha, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

LTCG amounting to several crores. vi) Many such individuals have voluntarily without any enquiry by any authority have voluntarily withdrawn their claim and filed revised return. vii) statements of brokers, operators and key persons of paper companies that has bought these shares, directors of Penny stock companies all confess

Smt. Alkaben S. Donga, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (4), Rajkot

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the Assessee

ITA 189/RJT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, D.R
Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

that there was cash deposit in the undisclosed bank a/c of the assessee as elaborated supra in this order., Thereafter, the assessee has filed revised return of income on 10th August, 2011 disclosing net profit after taking into account the undisclosed cash deposit found in the ICICI bank

Smt. Alkaben S. Donga, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (4), Rajkot

In the result, the appeals are allowed in favour of the Assessee

ITA 188/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Oct 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, D.R
Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

that there was cash deposit in the undisclosed bank a/c of the assessee as elaborated supra in this order., Thereafter, the assessee has filed revised return of income on 10th August, 2011 disclosing net profit after taking into account the undisclosed cash deposit found in the ICICI bank