“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

Shri Natarajan Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 5 (1), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 129/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri B. Suresh (C.A) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 148

trading transactions. The ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, submitted that a fresh claim of loss could be made only by way of revised return. The Ld. Sr. DR also submitted that the assessee should have approached CBDT u/s 119 to seek revision of return income. Having heard rival ... figures as speculation loss which would be allowed to be carried forward. The Ld. Sr. DR has argued that the assessee should file a revise return of income and seek condonation of delay from appropriate authority to seek new claim. However, we find that firstly there is no new claim

ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi vs. Smb Securities Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1760/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta And Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 electronically on 29.10.2015 disclosing total loss of Rs.1,10,15,204/-. Thereafter, it filed revised return of income on 09.03.2017 disclosing total income of Rs.10,61,350/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, assessment was framed under section

M/S. Shree Hatkeshwara Translines Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1546/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1546/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Shree Hatkeshwara Tranlines The Dcit, Circle-6, Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pune. Office No.9, Wonder City Building, Katraj By Pass Road, Katraj, Pune – 411046. Pan: Aabch 1999 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ms. Rucha Vaidya – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/07/2022 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 Which Is Against An Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act, 1961, For The A.Y. 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Learned Cit(A)-8, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming & The Learned Dcit, Circle-6, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Levying Penalty Of Rs.30,37,680/- For Concealment For Particulars Of Income U/S 271 (1 )(C) Of The Ita, 1961 Without Appreciating Peculiar Facts Of The Case. 2. Learned I-T Authorities Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That Specific Charge, As To Concealment Of Particulars Of Income (I.E. Limb-1) Or Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income (I.E. Limb-2) Was Not Made Out In The Notice U/S 274 Of The Ita, 1961. The I-T Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That, Non-

Section 139(5)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

without appreciating that, appellant had revised the return of income within permitted time u/s 139(5) of the ITA, 1961; and that, the said revised return of income was duly accepted by the I-T authorities. Learned I-T authorities ought to have appreciated that once the revised return ... assessee declared additional income of Rs.98,05,656/- for the A.Y.2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 and the same was included in the revised Return of Income filed on 20.01.2013. Since the additional income was declared due to survey action, therefore, the Assessing Officer(AO) levied penalty under section

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Satyam Venture Engineering Services Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 866/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessment year 2010-11 and Rs.8,10,55,619/- for the assessment year 2011-12 and the same was considered in the revised return of the assessee by the learned Assessing Officer, Ld. CIT(A) rightly directed the learned Assessing Officer to delete the same. 15. Having considered the factual ... relatable to the sales commission for these years, because it was already offered to tax by the assessee in those years by way of revised return of income and considered by the learned Assessing Officer while passing the order under section 143(3) read with section 144C

Satyam Venture Engineering Services Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed

ITA 721/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Dr. R Sridhar, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 691/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 50E

filed return of income for the year under consideration on 30.9.2015 reporting a taxable income of Rs.1,06,96,790. Subsequently, he filed a revised return on 31.3.2016 declaring taxable income of Rs.7,15,69,470. In the revised return, the assessee computed long term capital gain of Rs.10

M/S. Atria Convergence Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 1, Bangalore

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

ITA 2475/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194JSection 40

India. It filed return of income for AY 2011-12 on 30.9.2011 declaring a loss of Rs.33,25,10,204 and later filed a revised return on 20.2.2012 declaring a loss of Rs.33,32,12,461. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) served

Shri Chetanbhai Ramjibhai Aviaiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(2)(2), Surat

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

ITA 364/SRT/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.364/Srt/2017(Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Chetanbhai Ramjibhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- Avaiya, 24, Tapovan Society 3(2)(2), Room No.415, 4Th Vs Ved Road, Katargam, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat Surat Pan : Afspa 0072 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 253Section 254(1)

Assessing Officer has no power to disturb the income disclosed in the return of income. Further, the assessee failed to furnish any revised return after taking into consideration all the facts of the case. And that there is no mistake apparent from the record / typographical error which required rectification. Aggrieved ... Assessing Officer by taking view that jurisdiction to rectify the mistake is very limited. The Assessing Officer also held that assessee has not filed revised return of income. The ld. AR for the assessee invited our attention on the income tax return (ITR) acknowledgement and the computation of total income

Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 532/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2017-18 Aura Securities Private Limited, Income Tax Officer, 403, 404 Shilp Building, Vs Circle-1(1)(1), Cg Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad – 380009 Pan : Aabcm 0602 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah & Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ars Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 21.09.2020 & The Solitary Ground Raised Therein Reads As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah & Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

granting relief on the disallowance (suo moto made by the assessee) beyond the return of income and in the absence of any formal revised return. The CIT(A) has discussed this aspect in very great detail in para 2.5 to 2.28 of its order. We are not inclined to reiterate ... taxable has been wrongly offered for tax, will not operate as any kind of estoppel against the assessee and regardless of whether the revised return was filed or not. Once the assessee is in a position to show that it has been over assessed under the provisions

Markand Induprasad Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 501/AHD/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 501/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2018-2019 Markand Induprasad Bhatt, D.C.I.T., 2, Panchsheel Enclave, Vs. Cpc, Nr. Sundarvan, Bangalore. Satellite Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 119Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 192

case of the appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting contention of appellant on the ground that appellant ought to have filed revised return of income within due date if there is any mistake in filing return of income. He ought to have appreciated that AO is bound ... thus was of the view that the mistake was made by the assessee himself which could have been rectified by filing the revised return of income without putting the additional burden on the department to review/verify. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT-A the assessee

Jaya Hind Industries Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier Known As Jaya Hind Investments Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 9, Pune

ITA 739/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh M. PatelFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 80BSection 80GSection 80G(5)

ground that the form No. 3CL dt. 21-5- 2015 was received subsequent to the last date for filing of the revised return. The AO rejected the claim relying on the judgment of supreme Court in the case of Goetz Indi Ltd. Vs. CIT reported ... required under the law at Rs.2,04,50,732/- vide his report dd. 30/12/2013. This is also prior to the date of filing the revised return. In view In these documents, the appellant could have filed the claim either in the returns filed or by filing a revised return

Mercedes-Benz India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 495/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: S/Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri J.P., Chandraker

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

Benz A.Y. 2012-13 Minimum Alternate Tax (‗MAT‘) provisions of the Act of Rs 32,09,79,384). Thereafter, the assessee also filed a revised return on 29 March 2014 declaring the taxable income of Rs.33,77,27,590 (deemed income as per section 115JB Minimum Alternate Tax (‗MAT‘) provisions

Jivaram B. Sutar, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 493/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2019-20 Jivaram B. Suthar, Deputy Commission Of Income Tax, 7, Safalya Jeevan Chs Ltd., Cpc, R. Narkar Road, Vs. Mumbai. Ghatkopar East, Mumbai-400077. Pan No. Asnpb 4238 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Smita Nair, DR

Section 143(1)Section 40

rectifiable by the assessee and therefore, it was the onus of the assessee to therefore, it was the onus of the assessee to file revised return of revised return of income and there was no error in the order of the Assessing Officer. income and there was no error ... appellant's Having discovered the error it is the appellant's Having discovered the error it is the appellant's responsibility to file a revised return correcting the mistake. The responsibility to file a revised return correcting the mistake. The responsibility to file a revised return correcting the mistake

ITO 2 (2), Thane vs. M/S Span Realtors, Bhayander

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7465/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – Ward – 2(2) V. M/S. Span Venture 6Th Floor, Ashar I. T. Park 1St Floor, Span Duplex Room No. 26, B-Wing Opp. Maxus Mall Wagle Industrial Estate Bhayander (W) Road No. 16Z, Thane (W) - 400604 Thane-401101 Pan: Abvfs7153A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

A.Y.2013-14. Thereafter, assessee has revised its return of income on 25.09.2015 declaring total income of ₹.50,37,240/- and the revised return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of Income

ITO 2 (2), Thane vs. M/S Span Realtors, Bhayander

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7464/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

ITO 2 (2), Thane vs. M/S Span Venture, Bhayander

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7463/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

Cricket Club of India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3282/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Us:-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

consideration together with the respective returns. We find that the assessee had duly offered the interest income and capital gains to tax in the revised return of income. We find that the ld. PCIT had proceeded completely on incorrect assumption of fact. We hold that the ld. PCIT has grossly

Sitel India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1777/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 10ASection 250

./2012 on this issue on the basis that such claim has not been made by the assessee either in the return or in the revised return of income filed by the assessee, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. (157 Taxman 1). Being aggrieved

Dy.CIT-8(3), Mumbai vs. Sitel India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1426/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 10ASection 250

Manorma V. Rathi, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 778/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhsmt. Manorma V. Rathi Vs. The Acit, Circle 21(1) C/O G.P. Mehta & Co. C-10, Vi Floor, Cas., 807, Tulsiani Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Chambers, 212, Nariman Bandra Kurla Complex, Point, Mumbai Bandra (E), 400 021 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabpr3678Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Hoshang B. Irani

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(C)

Therefore, notice u/s 153C of the Act, dated 16.11.2009 was issued to the assessee. In response to the notice issued the assessee submitted that revised return filed by heron 31.12.2008 be treated as return of income filed in compliance to the notice issued u/s 153C of the Act. Thereafter ... each flats as per the seized promissory notes be taken as her additional income and this additional income was has already shown in the revised return of income filed on 31.12.2008. ITA No.778/Mum/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 3 Smt. Manorma V. Rathi Vs. The ACIT, Circle 21(1) Therefore