← 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

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

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

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

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

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

Enviro Technology Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch Circle-2, Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1474/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

27/09/2008 declaring income of Rs.83,58,410/-and book profit under Section 115JB of the Act of Rs. 1,62,37,896/-. Revised return of income was filed on 31.03.2010. The Assessing Officer completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 24/12/2010 determining total income

Enviro Technology Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch Circle-2, Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1473/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

27/09/2008 declaring income of Rs.83,58,410/-and book profit under Section 115JB of the Act of Rs. 1,62,37,896/-. Revised return of income was filed on 31.03.2010. The Assessing Officer completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 24/12/2010 determining total income

Enviro Technology Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch Circle-2, Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1471/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

27/09/2008 declaring income of Rs.83,58,410/-and book profit under Section 115JB of the Act of Rs. 1,62,37,896/-. Revised return of income was filed on 31.03.2010. The Assessing Officer completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 24/12/2010 determining total income

Enviro Technology Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1845/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

27/09/2008 declaring income of Rs.83,58,410/-and book profit under Section 115JB of the Act of Rs. 1,62,37,896/-. Revised return of income was filed on 31.03.2010. The Assessing Officer completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 24/12/2010 determining total income

Enviro Technology Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax., Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 498/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

27/09/2008 declaring income of Rs.83,58,410/-and book profit under Section 115JB of the Act of Rs. 1,62,37,896/-. Revised return of income was filed on 31.03.2010. The Assessing Officer completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 24/12/2010 determining total income

Enviro Technology Ltd., Ankleshwar vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 497/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

27/09/2008 declaring income of Rs.83,58,410/-and book profit under Section 115JB of the Act of Rs. 1,62,37,896/-. Revised return of income was filed on 31.03.2010. The Assessing Officer completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 24/12/2010 determining total income

Enviro Technology Limited, Ankleshwar vs. The ACIT., Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2019/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

27/09/2008 declaring income of Rs.83,58,410/-and book profit under Section 115JB of the Act of Rs. 1,62,37,896/-. Revised return of income was filed on 31.03.2010. The Assessing Officer completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 24/12/2010 determining total income

Enviro Technology Limited, Ankleshwar vs. The ACIT., Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2018/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

27/09/2008 declaring income of Rs.83,58,410/-and book profit under Section 115JB of the Act of Rs. 1,62,37,896/-. Revised return of income was filed on 31.03.2010. The Assessing Officer completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 24/12/2010 determining total income

Vinayna Veljee, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 49/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B.T. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 194D

installment of " 7,95,000/- from LIC as taxable income without deducting therefrom proportionate premium paid on the aforesaid sum. Thereafter, the assessee furnished revised return of income declaring only the surplus of " 59,215/- as taxable income in respect of 1st installment of " 7,95,000/- received from ... paid by the I.T.A No. 49/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No. 3 Vinayna Veljee vs. ITO assessee) shall become taxable. However, while filing the revised return, as per the assessee, by way of bona-fide mistake, he incorrectly computed net surplus on the basis of surrender value received in February

Iris Engineering Industries P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1437/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Iris Engineering Industries Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., (Now Known As M/S. Ravilla Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Aerospace Industries P. Ltd.), No. 178, Coimbatore. Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore 641 005. [Pan:Aaaci8996G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore Dated 31.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

made by the appellant but only after the Assessing Officer finding it during the survey. In similar cases where assessees surrendered income by filing revised returns after departmental actions like surveys, enquiries etc. and such returns/ surrenders were accepted in assessment, the Courts have held that Penalty

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 27/CHNY/2012[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

Rs.2.79 Lacs as admitted in return of income filed on 06.07.2006 was taken to be the business income and the loss shown in the revised return was ignored. In the business income, slot fee of Rs.32.44 Lacs was added. Finally, the agricultural income was treated as ‘income from other sources

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 26/CHNY/2012[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

Rs.2.79 Lacs as admitted in return of income filed on 06.07.2006 was taken to be the business income and the loss shown in the revised return was ignored. In the business income, slot fee of Rs.32.44 Lacs was added. Finally, the agricultural income was treated as ‘income from other sources

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 25/CHNY/2012[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

Rs.2.79 Lacs as admitted in return of income filed on 06.07.2006 was taken to be the business income and the loss shown in the revised return was ignored. In the business income, slot fee of Rs.32.44 Lacs was added. Finally, the agricultural income was treated as ‘income from other sources

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 24/CHNY/2012[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

Rs.2.79 Lacs as admitted in return of income filed on 06.07.2006 was taken to be the business income and the loss shown in the revised return was ignored. In the business income, slot fee of Rs.32.44 Lacs was added. Finally, the agricultural income was treated as ‘income from other sources

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 23/CHNY/2012[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

Rs.2.79 Lacs as admitted in return of income filed on 06.07.2006 was taken to be the business income and the loss shown in the revised return was ignored. In the business income, slot fee of Rs.32.44 Lacs was added. Finally, the agricultural income was treated as ‘income from other sources

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 22/CHNY/2012[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

Rs.2.79 Lacs as admitted in return of income filed on 06.07.2006 was taken to be the business income and the loss shown in the revised return was ignored. In the business income, slot fee of Rs.32.44 Lacs was added. Finally, the agricultural income was treated as ‘income from other sources

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 21/CHNY/2012[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

Rs.2.79 Lacs as admitted in return of income filed on 06.07.2006 was taken to be the business income and the loss shown in the revised return was ignored. In the business income, slot fee of Rs.32.44 Lacs was added. Finally, the agricultural income was treated as ‘income from other sources

Mustafa Khaleel, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 698/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, A.R., Standing counsel for Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 96

exempted from capital gains tax." 2.5 The assessee thought of withdrawing the said offer of CAPITAL GAIN taxation, he wanted to file a revised return but there was no time limit u/s, 139(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961 to file a revised return as it was expired

Smita Dey, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 20/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Smita Dey Dcit, Cpc, Bengaluru 4B, Baishnab Ghata Vs. Road, Kolkata – 700047. Pan: Azrpd 4069 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate & Shri Aryan Kochar, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Acit Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.09.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Asstt. Commissioner (Cpc) In Not Allowing Tax Deducted At Source Of Rs. 4,52,314/- Deducted On Salary Received As An Employee Of M/S. Genpact Mobility Services (P) Ltd. & Deputed To Switzerland During The Work Period Commencing From 25.05.2015 To 31.08.2015 In The Intimation Dated 12.11.2016 Under Section 143(1) Of I.T. Act, 1961. Ii. That Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Has Erred In Law As Well As In Fact In Not Allowing Relief U/S 90/91 Of It Act, 1961 For Tds Deducted At Rs. 4,52,314/- Towards Foreign Salary Income Received In Switzerland. Iii. That Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Has Failed To Appreciate That The Receipt Of Foreign Salary Has Already Been Shown Under Salary Income In Original Return & That As Per The 2 Smita Dey A.Y. 2016-17 Principal Of Natural Law & Justice The Same Income Cannot Be Subjected To Tax Twice I.E. In India As Well As In Switzerland. Iv. For That Further Grounds Of Appeal May Kindly Be Allowed To Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, ACIT

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 89Section 89(1)Section 90

amounting to Rs. 4,42,314/- as claimed in the original ITR filed in ITR-1. Immediately after the same, assessee filed a revised return u/s 139(5) on 04.01.2017 in ITR-2 in which the relief was correctly mentioned u/s 90. The revised return of the assessee ... income was filed belatedly, the assessee may be given an opportunity to rectify the mistake and claimed the relief u/s 90 in her revised return filed on 04.01.2017. The ld. AR in support of his claim submitting copy of Form No. 16, copy of rectification petition filed

Mr. Budnar Jayakar Shetty, Udupi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. PriyadrshiniBasaganni, D.R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)Section 57Section 69A

under question should be allowed as deduction. Hence, I direct the AO to consider the above claim of the appellant as disclosed in the revised return of income filed and accordingly delete the additions made amounting to Rs.23,83,069/-. The first ground of appeal is allowed ... made before us. Accordingly, this ground is rejected. 6.3. The assessee also raised a ground that AO ignored the fact that once the revised return filed u/s 153C of the Act, the original return u/s 139 of the Act abates and becomes non-est. However, we find that in view