“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

ACIT (OSD-II) Cent. RG. - 7, Mumbai vs. M/S. Cifco Finance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result all 16 appeals related to the assessee are disposed off

ITA 2323/MUM/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal C Bench Mumbai Before Sri Amit Shukla J M & Prashant Maharishi Am In The Matter Of Cifco Finance Limited, [ Aaacc1765F] Bhupen Chambers, Dalal Street, Mumbai V The Asst Commissioner Of Income Tax Aykar Bhavan 4Th Floor , M K Road Mumbai 20

Section 143Section 147Section 271

inadvertently in the computation of income filed this amount was not excluded from the business income. The AO rejected the same stating that no revised return is filed. The assessee preferred the claim before the learned CIT – A in the grounds of appeal, which was rejected ... reason that assessee has not filed revised return of income. Assessee has challenged such rejection by the CIT – A, however, due to abundant caution, assessee also raised this ground before us is an additional ground. The claim of the assessee is that same is required to be adjudicated

Ramniklal Gordhandas Kotecha, Rajkot vs. Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 208/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 10A

Officer in other order dated 28.12.2011 that the assessee is claiming exemption under Section 10AA of the Act. As the assessee has not filed revised return for availing such claim, the claim of exemption under Section 10AA of the Act is not considered. Hence, the assessee’s claim of exemption

Ramniklal Gordhandas Kotecha, Rajkot vs. Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 207/RJT/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot26 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 10A

Shree Kadi Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd, Kadi vs. The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

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

ITA 6/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri H.V. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)

6/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 5 Shree kadi Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited

Divine Grace Green Farming and Marketing Multi State Co. Op. Soc.Ltd., Siddhpur vs. ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1421/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. DR

Section 37Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Apex Court that the assessee cannot amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than filing a revised return. Ld. AR submitted that Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Karnataka State Co-operative Federation Limited held that ... assessee’s fresh claim before appellate authority is entertainable even when same is not claimed in original return of income nor assessee has filed revised return of income to make such claim. The Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has taken cognizance

Praphull Kaluram Shivale, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 12, Pune

ITA 490/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 490/Pun/2019 करिनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale, 234, Balu Shetpabal Road, Vadhu Budruk, Shirur,Pune – 412216 Pan :Bfqps4176B . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 12, Pune . . . . . . . ""थ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri B. C. Malakar Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing :16/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement :26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Is Challenged Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 14/02/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which In Turn Dove Out Of Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Asstt. Commission Of Income Tax, Circle-12 Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt.28/06/2018 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri B. C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43C

survival of penalty and supporting the orders of the tax authority below argued that, the quantum addition was carried out in the absence of revised return, but on the basis of material ITAT-Pune Page 6 of 14 Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale PAN :BFQPS4176B Asstt Yr.: 2015-16 impounded which

Indsure Healthcare Private Limited, Nagercoil vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Tirunelveli

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

ITA 537/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No: 537/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Indsure Healthcare Private Income Tax Officer, Limited V. National Faceless Assessment No. 77-C2/1, Centre, Sadhana, Delhi. Asaripallam Road, Nagercoil – 629 001. [Pan: Aadci-8088-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A.S. Sumanth, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 17.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2022 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.S. Sumanth, JCIT

Section 143Section 271BSection 274Section 44ASection 7

Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In this case, return was filed on 13.03.2018 and revised return on 01.09.2018 also on 13.11.2018 respectively. However, from the submissions made by the assessee before the Ld. AO, assessee stated that it had filed

M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Appeal is disposed off

ITA 1839/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:1839/Chny/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2008 - 2009 M/S. Express Publications (Madurai) Limited, C/O Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate, No.384 (Old No.196), Lloyds Road, Chennai – 600 086. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaaci 0842D …………… Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Circle – Ii(1), (Now Dcit, Company Circle – 2(1), ""थ"/Respondent Chennai – 600 034. ……………

For Appellant: Mr. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Sreedevi, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 195Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

case is that the Assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2008–2009 which was revised on 30.03.2009. In the revised return, the Appellant declared income of INR 23,42,74,203/- before claiming set off against the brought forward business losses and un-absorbed depreciation

International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage Employees Provident Fund Trust, New Delhi vs. DDIT (E) Trust Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 704/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: ShriAnujGarg, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(25)(ii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

Apex Court laid down the dictum that the assessee cannot be allowed to make a claim of deduction other than filing the revised return. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the issue in this case is limited to the power of the Assessing Officer and does not impinge ... Apex Court inference can be drawn that the Assessee cannot make a claim before the Assessing Officer for deduction other than filing of revised return. However, the Appellate authorities are not restricted to do so in entertaining the fresh claim of deduction which is based on the facts and documents

International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage Employees Provident Fund Trust, New Delhi vs. DDIT (E) Trust Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 703/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: ShriAnujGarg, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(25)(ii)Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 250

Heidrick and Struggles Inc, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 435/DEL/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri K.M. GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia

Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 243Section 4o

Appeals)- 42 [‘CIT (A)’] has erred in disregarding the principles of natural justice and holding that relief could be claimed only by filing revised return for which statutory timeline has already expired. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in: 1.1 disregarding the CBDT circular ... vehemently submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has disregarded the principle of natural justice in holding that the relief can be claimed only by filing revised return for statutory time line as already expired. The Ld.CIT(A) has also not considered the Circular of the CBDT not comprehended Article

Mukesh Bhoormal Jain, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT - 19, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

Amitabh Bachchan (supra) to impugn the order of the Tribunal. In the facts of the Supreme Court decision, the Respondent-Assessee had filed a revised return, claiming additional expenses. During the Assessment Proceedings, the Assessing Officer called upon the Assessee to furnish the details with regard to the expenses claimed ... cash balance available, seeking to invoke Section 69C of the Act and treat the expenditure claimed as unexplained expenditure, the Assessee therein withdrew his revised return of income. Once this was done, the Assessing Officer accepted the same and did not make any further enquiry. The CIT in exercise

M/S. Loop Mobile Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1) (7), Mumbai

ITA 1077/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Om Prakash Kantassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ganesh Rajgopalan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 73

under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) as under: computed as under: -4208695095 Business loss as per revised return Add speculation loss 1 5768489508 Add car hire charges 747585 Add Business support expenses 39588805 33045059 Add Legal Et professional fee Assessed business income

Edelweiss Financail Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1328/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 90

Rs.18,41,61,150/- under normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs.53,02,93,945/- u/s.115JB of the Act. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee on 30/03/2016 to claim tax relief u/s.90 of the Act and additional TDS credit. M/s. Edelweiss Financial ... acknowledgement copy enclosed in page 76 of the paper book filed before us. It is a fact on record that assessee had filed its revised return of income on 30/03/2016. Even in the said revised return we find from the perusal of the entire income tax return, the assessee

Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1283/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 90

Edelweiss Finanacial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1197/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 90

Microsoft India (R&D) Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Neac, New Delhi

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

ITA 602/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)

view to satisfy the Revenue and to overcome the above disability, the assessee after having filed the original return for AY 2013-14 filed revised return claiming therein that the rental income is assessable under the head ‘income from other sources’. Adopting the reasons given in earlier years, analyzing

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Income Tax Office vs. Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 55/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Central Circle-3 vs. M/S N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd., Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 54/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd., Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 53/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh