“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

Fms Dental Hospitals Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 226/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Fms Dental Hospitals Vs. The Asst.Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Koti, Hyderabad. Circle – 17(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaacf3014G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri B. Statyanarayana Murthy, Ca Revenue By: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Hyderabad Dt.30.11.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Sri B. Statyanarayana Murthy, CAFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292C

also the contention of the ld.DR that for A.Ys. 2013- 14, 2014-15 the assessee has honoured the declaration and revised returns were filed and therefore, there was no reason for the assessee for not depositing the tax, on the basis of the statement and surrender made by the assessee

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)

Section 80Section 801B(10)

Income Tax Act, 1961, notwithstanding that the assessee had suo moto withdrawn claim of exemption under the aforesaid section by filing revised return, on the ground that its project could not be completed within the stipulated date.” 3. “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case ... 80IB(10) of the Act on 27.03.2012. And in this regard the AO in the assessment order notes that the assessee filed the revised return on 27.03.2012 declaring total income of Rs.23,62,14,990/- (meaning the exemption claimed u/s 80IB was withdrawn) but according to the AO this action

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)

Section 80Section 801B(10)

M/S. Barkatuiiah Vishwavidyalaya, Bhopal vs. DCIT (Exemption), Bhopal

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

ITA 924/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

held in Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) that a fresh claim can be made only by filing a revised return. But various courts have already analysed the impact of this decision and vehemently held that a fresh claim before appellate authorities is not barred

Jaideep Sharad Kotwal, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 454/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Deepak SasarFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80I

claimed by the assessee. 2) The CIT-A has erred in confirming the Ld. Assessing Officer’s contention of treating the assesse’s revised return as not east. 3) The CIT-A has erred in confirming the Ld. Assessing Officer’s contention of not considered the provision of section 80AC

Jaideep Sharad Kotwal, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1099/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Deepak SasarFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80I

Dy CIT-Circle-22(1), Mumbai vs. Mr Jamil Ahmed Quireshi, Mumbai

ITA 1202/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 22(1), Vs. Mr. Jamil Ahmed Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor, Qureshi Piramal Chambers, Lal 102, Emerland Baug, Parel, Apartment, Near Dadar Mumbai-400012. Shakari Bank, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400055. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpq1063C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra.Dr Respondent By : Shri Dhaval Jariwala.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Kabra.DRFor Respondent: Shri Dhaval Jariwala.AR

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

During the course of Assesseement proceedings, the assessee was provided ample opportunities but the assessee has not filed the revised return of income for the A.Y 2010-11. Therefore the A.O observed that the assessee does not have intention to file the return of income and worked out the income ... assessee irrespective of the facts that the assessee has made declaration of income in the survey operations and failed to file the revised return of income including the income disclosure. Further the income has to be taxed considering the facts and the statement of income disclosed/ recorded during the survey

ACIT Circle-8(1), New Delhi vs. Ecocat India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4252/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 4252/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Acit, Vs Ecocat India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-8(1), 12-A, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi New Delhi-110015 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv2674G

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Lalit Kishore, Sr. DR

Section 35Section 35(1)

originally claimed and the fresh claim u/s 35(1). 5. Since, the assessee has made fresh claim vide letter dated 22.01.2016, no revised return was filed and approval from DSIR was not received, therefore, the AO has disallowed the claim of deduction

Vatika Hotels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-17(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3987/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 147Section 32

assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2008 declaring loss of Rs.58,53,911/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income declaring loss of Rs.49,56,211/-. During the assessment proceeding, on examination of the financial statements of the assessee, the Assessing Officer observed

Mayur Khara, Yavatmal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

ITA 64/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

appellants’ case and the case before Hon’ble Supreme court are different. In the case before the Supreme Court, the assesse had filed a revised return, claiming additional expenses. The Assessing Officer enquired about the expenses and asked the assesse to furnish the details with regards to expenses incurred ... cash balance available with him. When the assessing officer commenced enquiry about the claim of expenditure out of cash balance, the assesse withdrew his revised return. The Assessing Officer accepted the same and made no further enquiries. Thus, this was a case where, once the claim was withdrawn, then

The ACIT (Central) Ujjain, Ujjain vs. M/S. Ariba Foods (P) Ltd., Indore

In the result the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2/IND/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

conducted u/s 133A at the place of assessee wherein the assessee offered undisclosed income of Rs. 1,43,65,000/-. Thereafter the assessee submitted revised return on 22.08.2017 declaring a loss of Rs. 23,07,528/-, after declaring the aforesaid income of Rs. 1,43,65,000/- and claiming additional

Tata Housing Development Company Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee ITA

ITA 3491/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Tata Housing Vs. Dcit – 8(3)(1) Development Company Room No. 615, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Aayakar Bhavan, Compound, Tb Kadam Mk Marg, Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 8(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Tata Housing Room No. 615, Aayakar Development Company Bhavan, Ltd.,E Block, Voltas Mk Marg, Compound, Tb Kadam Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400033. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaact0191Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Ajay Kumar. CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

income for the A.Y 2015-16 on 30.11.2015 disclosing a total loss of Rs.14,22,68,330/-, subsequently the assessee has filed the revised return of income on 31.03.2017 disclosing a total loss of Rs.137,99,37,932/-.The assessee has explained the reasons for filing ... 3533/Mum/2019 Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd, Mumbai revised return of income in respect of merger of two wholly owned subsidiary companies as per the scheme of amalgamation approved by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court on 27.04.2015 effective from appointed date as on 01.04.2014. Subsequently, the case was selected

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3500/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT

Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

Assessee is a company engaged in the business of banking. It filed its original return of income on 30th September, 2011, and subsequently, filed revised return 30th on March, 2013, declaring income of ₹1176,82,76,464/-. Return of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny and assessment order under ... perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. The appellant is a banking company. It filed its revised return of income for the AY 2010-11 on March 30, 2012 declaring total income at ₹ 7,90,10,18,157/-. As mentioned earlier, the question

Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3499/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT

Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

Yes Bank Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3498/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT

Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3238/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT

Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

DCIT- 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3237/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT

Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

DCIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Yes Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer in ITA number 3238/M/2018 for assessment year 2013 –

ITA 3236/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT

Section 14ASection 35DSection 40

ACIT, Circle-2, Bharuch vs. Shri Mohmedsadik A Shaikh, Ankaleshwar

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 682/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.682/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Mohmedsadik A. Shaikh, Bharuch. Prop. Of Earth Power, Behind Mona Complex, Rajpipla Chowkdi, Ankleshwar-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahzps5638N (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) Assessee By : Ms Kinjal V. Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 27/04/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)-Vadodara-3/10033/2017-18, Dated 30.07.2018, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

For Appellant: Ms Kinjal V. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Deependra Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, accepting the total income as returned by the assessee. Later on, the assessee filed a revised return on 19.07.2015, declaring total income at Rs.13,01,940/-. The said return of income for the year under consideration filed by assessee was selected

Olectra Greentech Limited, Secunderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

ITA 63/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri L.P.Sahuassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

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

conducted in the premises of the assessee and its other associated companies on 09.11.2017. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 23.10.2018 declaring an income of Rs.36,92,510/-. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, served a notice