“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

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 2682/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

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

Mahadev Pandurang Lotkar, Navi Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 970/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.970/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

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

Rs.5,16,930/- and it was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 30.06.2011. The assessee accepting the hawala purchases filed revised return of income by adding Rs.3,39,897/- totaling to Rs.7,47,603/- on 15.03.2013. The AO accepted the same vide its order dated

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. M/S Shriram Housing Finance Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 325/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S. Gautham VenkataFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 260A

grounds are allowed. 5.2 Next ground of appeal is that while computing the total income, the A.O proceeded from the total income as per revised return of income (filed on 27.03.2018) of Rs.46, 12,49,040/- instead of proceeding from the total income returned as per revised return of income

Ganesan Kaleeswaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw - 23 (4), Chennai

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

ITA 3404/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 24

salary income in the return of income. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny to verify the following (i) taxable income shown in revised return is less than the taxable income shown in the original return and large refund has been claimed (ii) Salary income shown ... less than the salary income as per 26AS. The AO required the assessee to explain how the salary income in the revised return of income is less than the original return of income. The assessee explained that he has claimed LTA of Rs.2,56,410/-, food expenses of Rs.36

Shree Ahuja Properties & Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC -6 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7215/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Shree Ahuja Vs. Dcit – Cc – 6(2) Properties & Developers Room No. 1903, 19Th A/201, Rajpipla, Opp Floor, Air India Bldg, Standard Chartered Nariman Point, Bank, Santacruz(W), Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400054. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abefs2387M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms.Kavita Kaushik.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 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) 54 Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Kavita Kaushik.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

dated 25.09.2009 as a return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently the assessee has filed the revised return of income and the copy of reasons for reopening of the assessment was provided to the assessee. The AO has referred to the notices issued

ACIT 16(2), Mumbai vs. Bsr and Co. LLP, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2549/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jagdish Jangid, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 40Section 90

income for AY 2013-14 on 29.11.2013, declaring a total income of Rs. 24,53,74,340/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed a 3 revised return on 30.03.2015 to claim additional TDS credit and additional tax credit u/s. 90 and 90A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Assessee’s case

Kshema Geo Holdings Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 598/BANG/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rajinish Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Sri.Praveen Karanth, CIT -DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(viia)

Thereafter, notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T.Act was issued and served on the assessee. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee filed revised return on 10.05.2017 declaring total income of Rs.56,09,642. The assessee’s AR vide its letter dated 13.06.2017 submitted that the undervaluation ... paid. The assessee’s AR furnished the necessary evidences in this regard to support the additional income of Rs.60,36,320 declared in the revised return as against the 3 ITA No.598/Bang/2021 & SA No.113/Bang/2021 M/s.Kshema Geo Holdings Private Limited. admitted additional income of Rs.72.19 lakh during the course of survey

Shri Prabhukumar Aiyappa Kullatira, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(3)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 3048/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Riyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 5(1)

facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) ought to have accepted the income declared in the revised return and refrained from including the capital gains arising out of sale of shares in the Dubai company. 3) The learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that ... income from other sources at Rs.22,42,670/- and declared taxable income at Rs.2,59,50,430/-. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 13.10.2015 declaring income from house property of Rs.7,27,538/-, income from capital gains of Rs.1,90,035/-, income from other sources Rs.27

ACIT, Circle-34(1), New Delhi vs. Modern Papers, Delhi

ITA 3674/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaacit, Vs. M/S. Modern Papers Circle-34(1), A-88, Ashok Vihar New Delhi Phase-I, Pan : Aaqfm2930H Delhi-110052 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

behalf of the revenue Ld. DR submitted assessee had himself first claimed the receipt to be revenue in nature and thereafter filed a revised return claiming it to be Capital receipt. It was submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has fallen in error in following the judgment of Hon’ble High

India Safari and Tours Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4919/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Senior DR

Assessing Officer (AO) observed that during examination of the case, it was noticed from the schedule of fixed assets as filed with the revised return that there was an addition of Rs.16,28,357/- shown under the head of Temporary Structure and depreciation @ 100% was claimed thereon. AO sought response ... favour of the assessee. 9. Apropos issue relating to disallowance of depreciation : On this issue, it was noticed by AO that in the revised return of income, the assessee had claimed deprecation @ 30% in respect of motor vehicle commercial. AO rejected the rate of depreciation of 30% on the ground

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram vs. Sri Govinda Jewellers, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 44/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.44/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Sri Govinda Jewellers, Ward-1, Vizianagaram. Vizianagaram. Pan: Aljpp 1952 A C.O. No.35/Viz/2021 (In आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ I.T.A. No.44/Viz/2021) (ननधधारण वषा / Ay :2017-18) M/S. Sri Govinda Jewellers, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram. Ward-1, Pan: Acsfs 8799 N Vizianagaram. (अऩीऱधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of : 15/06/2022 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan:

For Appellant: Sri GVN HariFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

income within the time frame allowed under section 139(5) of the Act. But in the present case, the assessee neither filed any revised return nor raised any objection at the time of assessment proceedings with regard to its additional income admitted in its return of income filed ... regarding the admission of additional ground by the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. AR submitted that since the due date of filing the revised return was time barred, the assessee could not file the revised return and hence raised the additional ground raised before

M/S. Puttur City Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Puttur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

In the result, (i) ITA No

ITA 73/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT -DR

Section 133A

company for the Asst.Year 2012-13. Whether you have paid any tax towards the additional income declared and when will you be filing your revised return? Ans: Yes, on the date of survey I had declared additional income of Rs.50:00 lakhs for Asst.Year 2012-13. But, subsequently

M/S. Puttur City Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Puttur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

In the result, (i) ITA No

ITA 72/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT -DR

Section 133A

M/S. Puttur City Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Puttur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Puttur

In the result, (i) ITA No

ITA 71/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT -DR

Section 133A

M/S. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 6, Bangalore

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

ITA 147/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sumer Singh Meena, DR

Section 10ASection 10BSection 14ASection 250Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80

things. ii) The assessee was not engaged in 'service.' iii) The claim of deduction in respect of S-11 was made only in the revised return and not in the original return of income. M/s. Syngene International Limited, Bangalore Page 10 of 29 iv) The assessee has not furnished details ... Syngene International Limited, Bangalore Page 11 of 29 11 was computed after setting off losses of other units. This was rectified in the revised return and filed within 139(5) timelines. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CCIT (Admn) v Machine Tools Corporation of India Limited

Bhaskar Chakraborty, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-70(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6212/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A No. 6212/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Bhaskar Chakraborty, Acit बनाम I–1764, First Floor, Circle : 70 (1) C/O. Dipankar Chakraborty, New Delhi. Vs. C. R. Park, New Delhi – 110 019. Pan No. Aaapc0621K अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Zahid Parvez, Sr. D. R

Section 143(3)

excess of the amount actually paid by the assessee. The ld. DR submits that the ld. CIT (Appeals) however, since no revised return was filed by the assessee the claim of the assessee was not accepted by the ld. CIT (Appeals). He strongly supported the order ... income filed by the assessee was not acted upon by the Assessing Officer since claim was not made by the assessee by way of revised return. The claim for rejection of salary income by the assessee by way of revised computation of income which was filed before the Assessing Officer

Danfos Power Solutions India Private Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2673/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2673/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(II)

attention to the Assessing Officer‟s assessment discussion that the assessee‟s claim could not even been entertained since not filed even in a revised return as per Goetze India Ltd. V/s. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). Suffice to say, that the CIT(A) has gone a step ahead ... assessment discussion in holding that although their lordships have made it clear that the appellate authorities‟ jurisdiction to entertain a new claim without a revised return has nowhere been impinged upon in any manner whatsoever. His findings in paras 10 onwards hold that the assessee had already amortized cost

Krishan Kumar Modi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 7614/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271ASection 69

found amounting to Rs.11,82,500/- as its income. Further, subsequent to the filing of the original return of income, the assessee filed a revised return of income offering the interest income of Rs.29,28,474/- earned on 2 | P a g e AY: 2012-13 the deposits

M/S Delhi International Airport Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD) Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 127/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT -DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 234CSection 244ASection 250

refund of Rs.72,77,500/- was claimed in the return of income. (refer factual Paper Book Page 1-3). Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on February 8, 2018 declaring therein income of Rs.Nil (after set off of brought forward losses of Rs.570,72,18,138/-) under normal ... laws relied on, the CBDT Instructions. The other set comprising of factual paper book enclosing therein the acknowledgement for filing of the original return, revised return, copy of the assessment orders, rectification applications, challan for remittance / payment of excess refund of Rs.61,67,240, etc. The learned AR reiterated

M/S. Biocon Limited, Bengaluru vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on the legal issue raised in ground no

ITA 1858/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010-11 The Joint M/S. Biocon Ltd., Commissioner Of 20Th Km, Hosur Road, Income-Tax, Electronic City, Large Tax Payers Bangalore – 560 100. Unit [Ltu], Pan: Aaacb7461R Vs. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Khincha, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For A.Y. 2010-11 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein Below Are Independent & Without Prejudice To The Other Grounds Preferred By The Appellant. 1. That On Facts & Circumstances Of The ' Case & In Law, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals ["Cit(A)"] Dated March 28, 2018 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") For Ay 2010-11 To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant, Is Bad In Law & Facts & Liable To Be Quashed. 2. Scope Of Re-Assessment Proceedings

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand Khincha

Section 147Section 250Section 35

section 35(2AB) of the Act 6.1 That on facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the revised return Page 6 of 41 of income filed by the Appellant wherein the weighted deduction under section 35(2AB) was allocated to units eligible