← 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

M/S. Atria Power Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 376/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R Narayana, Addl. CIT
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234

hydel and solar renewable energy sources. Its filed its return of income on 31/10/2019 declaring a loss of Rs.12,88,69,400/- and filed revised return of income on 19/12/2017 declaring a total income of Rs.1,92,97,500/- under the general provisions of the Act and book profit

Mr. Devidas Dyaneshwar Khandve, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 12, Pune

ITA 566/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.566/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr.Devidas Dyaneshwar Khandve, The Dy.Commissioner Of S.No.187, Opp.32 Room, Vs Income Tax, Circle-12, Lohegaon, Chirikle Colony, Near Pune. Water Tank, Pune – 411047. Pan: Akgpk 0229 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2022 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), Pune-5’S, Order Dated 10.02.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13, Involving Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Assessing Officer & Cit(A)-V Erred In Law & In Levying The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 & Therefore, Levied Penalty Of Rs.65,87,295/- Without Considering Suo Moto Filing Of Revised Return After The Survey Action U/S 133A.”

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax act, 1961 and therefore, levied penalty of Rs.65,87,295/- without considering suo moto filing of revised return after the survey action u/s 133A.” ITA No.566/PUN/2018 for A.Y.2012-13 Mr.Devidas Dyneshwar Khandve Vs. DCIT [A] 2. Brief facts of the case are that

Kalcyon Asia Business and Development Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 12(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for 8

ITA 2029/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandram/S. Halcyon Asia Vs. Ito Business & Development Ward -12(3) Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi A-49, Mohan Co-Operative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110044 Pan No. Aabch 4815 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Venugopal Nair, C.A. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.08.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

under :- 3. Assessee is a company who filed its return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 31.03.2010 declaring total income of Nil. Thereafter, revised return was filed on 30.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs.1,04,775/-. The assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 23.12.2011 determining

M/S. Malharmachi Holiday Resort, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 761/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

income. Under scrutiny notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed revised return of income declaring a total income of Rs.2,03,48,233/- which is inclusive of the additional income as declared during the course ... whether the assessee concealed any income or disclosed income admitted during the course of survey which was accepted by the Revenue in the revised return of income constitutes concealment of income or not. Admittedly, the assessee offered Rs.1,64,00,000/- as additional income during the course of survey

Juniper Networks International B.V., Mumbai vs. CIT (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 982/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) Juniper Networks International B.V, Boeing Avenue 240, 1119Pz Schipol-Rijk, Amsterdam,0 Netherlands Pan: Aadcj-0974-G ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It), Mumbai -3, Room No.1601, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep Bhalla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma & Shri Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma &
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

rendering maintenance services. The assessee filed its original return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 on 28/11/2014. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 30/03/2016 claiming refund of Rs.8,16,40,560/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer issued notice ... Officer might have collected the documents during assessment proceedings but has not examined the same. The Assessing Officer failed to enquire as to why revised return was filed by the assessee resulting in refund of tax paid. The ld. Departmental Representative relied on Explanation -2 to section

Sri Rathan Babulal Lath, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 157/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R
Section 132Section 153A

assessment.” Relevant date 4.8 (i) In the present case, the assessee filed original return of assessment year 2009-10 on 19.08.09 (ii) Assessee filed revised return on 22.08.09 (iii) Time limit of issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act in case of above revised return

M/S. Nath Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-1(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 832/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2022AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 119Section 139(5)

year 2018-19. 2. The main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) for not considering the belated revised return of merged entity since the amalgamation order was passed by the Ld. NCLT on 22.08.2019 with retrospective effect from 01.04.2017. 3. Brief facts ... w.e.f. 01.04.2017 as per the order of the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dated 22.08.2019. Due to the aforesaid fact/development, the assessee filed revised return of income on 2 A.Y. 2018-19 M/s. Nath Industries Ltd. 21.12.2020 under receipt no. 859702751211220 in respect of the merged entity; and also

Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Co. Ltd., Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 82/RPR/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.82/Rpr/2021 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Chhattisgarh State Power Vs Dcit(Cpc), Bengaluru Generation Co. Ltd., Ground Floor, Vidyut Sewa Bhawan, Dangania, Raipur (C.G.)-492001 Pan No. : Aadcc 5772 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

filing disclosing total income of Rs. Nil, showing a MAT liability of Rs. 43,33,74,802/-. Later on, the assessee filed a revised return on 30.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs.Nil. i.e. same as original return filed on 31.10.2018 but with a MAT liability ... that since the assessee has already disallowed and added back the said sum of Rs.421,44,91,036/- in computation of income filed with revised return on 30.09.2019, therefore double addition is not permissible. In the result appeal was partly allowed by the CIT(A) NFAC. Now, the assessee

Deco Mica Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The JCIT(OSD), Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1243/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Deco Mica Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 306, 3Rd Floor, Iscon Mall, Star Bazar Vs Income-Tax (Osd), Building, Jodhpur Cross Road, Circle 1(1)(2), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacd 8652 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

there was no willful suppression of facts by the assessee, but that a genuine mistake or omission had been committed. The assessee filed a revised return on the same day... .. According to the Supreme Court, the assessee had committed an inadvertent and bona fide error and had not intended

M/S. Softrack Venture Investment Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2154/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2154/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 M/S. Softract Venture Investment Ltd., I.T.O, C/O Nanavaty & Associates, Vs. Ward-8(2), A/18, 3Rd Floor, Ahmedabad. Narayan Chambers, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-383009. Pan: Aaocs4146C

For Appellant: Shri A.P. Nanavaty, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

have adopted these imaginary figures of alleged evaded income tax on the "reduction Asstt. Year 2011-12 6 of loss" as claimed in the Revised Return filed by the Assessee and as the basis for "assumed income tax liability" thereon, 100% penalty thereon could not have been imposed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik vs. Govind Jaikrishna Dande & Sons, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1001/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

leading to the above addition is as under : An amount of Rs.36,43,892/- was offered to tax as additional income by filing the revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act. When the respondent-assessee was asked to explain said discrepancies in the value of stock ... discrepancies with evidence and the fact that the respondent-assessee firm itself had offered additional income of Rs.36,43,892/- by filing the revised return of income would establish the fact that the explanation offered by the respondent- assessee firm is not believable. The explanation offered by the respondent-assessee

Pattukottai Agricultural Producers Co-Op Marketing Society Limited, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, Circle-2-, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 168/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra T. Mishra, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

fact, the CIT(Appeals) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the same was not raised by way of a revised return. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra). The Apex Court in categorical terms held that the power

Pattukottai Agricultureal Producers Coop Marketting Society Limited, Pattukttai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 167/CHNY/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra T. Mishra, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

fact, the CIT(Appeals) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the same was not raised by way of a revised return. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra). The Apex Court in categorical terms held that the power

Pattukottai Agricultureal Producers Coop Marketting Society Limited, Pattukttai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 166/CHNY/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra T. Mishra, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

fact, the CIT(Appeals) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the same was not raised by way of a revised return. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra). The Apex Court in categorical terms held that the power

Pattukottai Agricultural Producers Co-Op.Marketing Society Limited, Pattukottai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 165/CHNY/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra T. Mishra, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

fact, the CIT(Appeals) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the same was not raised by way of a revised return. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra). The Apex Court in categorical terms held that the power

Pattukottai Agricultural Producers Co-Op.Marketing, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 164/CHNY/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra T. Mishra, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

fact, the CIT(Appeals) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the same was not raised by way of a revised return. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra). The Apex Court in categorical terms held that the power

Pattukottai Agricultural Producers Co.Op.Marketing Society Limited, Pattukottai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 163/CHNY/2022[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra T. Mishra, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(c)

fact, the CIT(Appeals) rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the same was not raised by way of a revised return. We have carefully gone through the judgment of Apex Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra). The Apex Court in categorical terms held that the power

Geethanjali, Mannargudi vs. Assistant Commissioner, Trichirappalli

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

ITA 120/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V.B. Jeyachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

120/Chny/2022 assessing gross undisclosed contract receipts and not allowing any expenditure despite the fact that the assessee has revised return of income and offered profit u/s. 44AD of the Act. For this issue, in both the years assessee has raised argumentative grounds which need not to be reproduced. The facts ... allowed to expenses against this undisclosed contract receipts and alternatively it was pleaded that the assessee has offered these receipts in the revised return of income and offered profit u/s. 44AD of the Act. This fact has not been contested by Revenue, but Revenue’s only contests is that once

Geethanjali, Mannargudi vs. Assistant Commissioner, Trichirappalli

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

ITA 119/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri V.B. Jeyachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

120/Chny/2022 assessing gross undisclosed contract receipts and not allowing any expenditure despite the fact that the assessee has revised return of income and offered profit u/s. 44AD of the Act. For this issue, in both the years assessee has raised argumentative grounds which need not to be reproduced. The facts ... allowed to expenses against this undisclosed contract receipts and alternatively it was pleaded that the assessee has offered these receipts in the revised return of income and offered profit u/s. 44AD of the Act. This fact has not been contested by Revenue, but Revenue’s only contests is that once

Shankara Reddy Hareesh, Hosur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hosur

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

ITA 138/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

money transfer or he could be called as money changer and he filed his return of income first on 28.06.2017 and immediately filed a revised return by stating the nature of business. He stated that this amount of Rs.5,40,000/- pertains to various persons for which the assessee undertakes