“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

Amit Sanap, Kalyan vs. DCIT CC 1, Thane

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2007–08

ITA 682/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

163A do not constitute de novo assessment. The assessee la precluded from raising any fresh claim after expiration of the time allowed to file revised return a 139 (5) Therefore, no such fresh or revised claim can be raised in assessments made 153A Similar finding has been rendered

Amit Sanap, Kalyan vs. DCIT CC 1, Thane

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2007–08

ITA 681/MUM/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

Amit Sanap, Kalyan vs. DCIT CC 1, Thane

In the result, appeal by the assessee for assessment year 2007–08

ITA 680/MUM/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

Asian Electronics Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and revenue is allowed

ITA 4804/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Shailaja Rai

Section 115Section 115JSection 14A

depreciation of Rs.14386.34 lakhs as per provisions Of sec.115JB of the Act without appreciating the fact assessee, neither in the original nor in the revised return of the income made the Claim of brought forward loss/unabsorbed depreciation 11 ITA NOs. 4770 & 4804/MUM/2012 (A.Y: 2009-10) M/s. Asian Electronics Limited ... less than the brought forward business loss of Rs.14386.34 lakhs without appreciating the fact that the assessee, neither in the original nor in the revised return of income made the claim of brought forward loss/unabsorbed depreciation’. 8. Revenue has raised two grounds in its appeal, in respect of Ground

DCIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Asian Electronics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and revenue is allowed

ITA 4770/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Shailaja Rai

Section 115Section 115JSection 14A

Active Promoters P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6147/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Section 192Section 199Section 199oSection 250

said Emaar MGF Land Ltd in its return of Income for the assessment year under consideration, it shall be entitled to file a revised return including the aforesaid TDS amount in its income and claim TDS credits thereupon accordingly and the Assessing Officer after verification shall allow the tax credits

Strategic Infosystems Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 436/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R

Section 115P

Rectification and getting corrections made by the deductor and to get them uploaded is not an easy task. The second phase of filing a revised return or an application under section 154 is equally 'daunting and expensive'. Invariably the assessees write letters or even visit the office of the deductors

Shri Himanshu Prafulchandra Varia, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 909/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukeshkumar Sharma, Sr.D.R

Section 131Section 139(5)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

statement recorded during survey proceedings of the assessee, the same was surrendered as his unaccounted income. Thereafter during assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised return disclosing the said income in his return of income. However, since the revised return was filed beyond the time limit prescribed ... disclose the same in his original return was on account of bonafide mistake and that therefore suo moto and voluntarily he had filed the revised return including the unaccounted income in the same and had also paid taxes thereon. The A.O. however rejected the revised return filed by the assessee

DCIT Central Cir-6(4), Mumbai vs. Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is partly allowed

ITA 496/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Indiabulls Housing Finance Tax, Limited Central Circle–6(4) M–62 & 63, Room No.1925, 19Th Floor, 1St Floor, Connaught Place, Vs. Air India Building, New Delhi 110 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci2612A Assessee By : Mr. Om Kandalkar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2022

For Appellant: Mr. Om Kandalkar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245D(4)

Finance Ltd; A.Y. 12–13 Taxman 1 (SC), wherein it has been held that additional claim of deduction can be made by filing a revised return of income only? 8. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and / or to alter any of the ground of appeal

DCIT Cent, Cir-2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and the assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1799/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Sidhharth Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 32Section 4

claim of education cess debited in profit &loss account. Since the assessee has not claimed by way of revised return of income, the Assessing Oficer has rejected the revised computation of income and has assessed the total income of 5 M/s Vinati Organics Ltd. ITA Nos. 1859 & 1799/Mum/2021 Rs.71 ... claim of export incentive before the AO in its return of income nor the claim was raised at the time of filing the revised return of income. The claim was raised before the CIT(A) initially and the CIT(A) was having co-terminus power as of AO who dealt

Mobile Trading & Investment Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Circle-3 (2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6721/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmobile Trading & Vs. Ito, Circle – 3(2)(2) Investment Pvt Ltd., Room No. 673, 6Th 141, Mittal Tower, C- Floor, Aayakar Wing, Nariman Point, Bhavan, Mk Road Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccm1419N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Dinkle Hariya.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Dinkle Hariya.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Pramod Nikalje.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Mumbai has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2013-14 on 26.09.2013 disclosing a total income of Rs. Nil. The revised return of income was filed on 17.01.2014 disclosing total income of Rs.NIL and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently

Rashmi Infrastructure Developers Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3243/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 245D(1)Section 245D(4)Section 80I

declaring total income of Rs 60,12,040/-, which was later revised on 8.7.2014 declaring total income at Rs Nil. In the revised return, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act for Rs 60,12,044/-. This revised return was filed within the time prescribed ... provisions of section 80AC of the Act, the deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act is not eligible. The claim made in the revised return is not tenable as audit report in Form 10CCB had to be filed along with the return filed

Rashmi Infrastructure Developers Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT -3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3128/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Section 131Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 245D(1)Section 245D(4)Section 80I

DCIT, Corporate Circle -1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Posco India Private Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 423/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Vs. M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.09/Ctk/2020 (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) (In Ita No.423/Ctk/2019) Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., M/S. Posco India Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(2), Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Ground Floor, Fortune Towers, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Zone-6, 6, Chandrasekharpur, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B Pan/Gir No.Aadcp 6735 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra/Shri A.K.SabatFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (

Section 250

result, the appeal for the Assessment Year 2008-09 is allowed and the learned Assessing Officer is directed to accept the NIL revised return and the appeals for the AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08 are restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for consideration afresh in the light

Sri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(5), Bangalore

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, ITP

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 2(14)Section 234Section 292BSection 54B

Rs.14,17,87,795/- as Capital Gains from the above transaction in its original return of Income furnished to the Department. Subsequently, in its revised return of Income dated 15.6.2009, the assessee had admitted income of Rs.22,90,570/-, on the ground that the capital gains which arose

M/S Omprakash Mittal, Indore vs. ITO 2(2), Indore

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

ITA 243/IND/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

BACKGROUND: 2. The assessee filed original Return of Income on 30.10.2017 declaring a total income of Rs. 11,74,260/- and subsequently filed a revised Return of Income on 05.01.2018 declaring a total income of Rs.11,76,260/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices

DCIT Circle-7, Pune vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Pune

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 55/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

details of loss carried forward has been reflected by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 33,69,239/-. Non filing of revised return is hypothetical assumption by the Department that the assessee intends to conceal the income which is however not demonstrated by any evidence on record. Hence this

Texmat Agencies Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed

ITA 1798/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

appeal under consideration are different and distinguishable. In all the cases relied upon by the appellant, the basic issue involved is that the filed revised return and there was no detection of concealment by the AO and the assessee committed mistake under bonafide belief. However, in the appeal under consideration

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Udupi vs. M/S Manipal Technologies Limited, Manipal

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

ITA 69/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Udupi M/S. Manipal Technologies Limited, Vs. Udayavani Building, Manipal- 576104. Pan: Aabcm 9516 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: The Present Appeal Filed By The Department Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mangaluru In Appeal No. Ita No. 10030/Udp/Cit(A)Mng/2016-17 Dated 27.11.2017 Against The Order Of Dcit, Circle- 1, Udupi Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.03.2016. 2. There Are Six Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Department In The Present Appeal, All Of Which Relate To The Disallowance Made U/S 14A Of The Act R.W.R. 8D(2)(Ii) & 8D(2)(Iii) Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Rules), Amounting To Rs. 1,61,65,201/-.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

reporting a loss of Rs. 6,97,35,250/- and book profit computed u/s 115JB of Rs. 6,24,94,092/-. The last revised return of income was filed on 28.03.2015 reporting a loss of Rs. 4,37,39,018/- and book profit u/s 115JB

The Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gujarat Microwax Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both of the Appeals of Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2683/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 92E

ITA No.2682 & 2683/Ahd/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE