“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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Privat Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1640/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Venkatraman IyerFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 143

CBDT Circular No.9j2014 and subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings has claimed depreciation on 'intangible asset'. This claim is not supported by any revised return. 11. It is submitted that in the BOT agreement, the possession of land is handed over to the assessee by the NHAIjGovt

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Guruvayoor Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1639/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Venkatraman IyerFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 143

Mr. Bhavnesh Rajendra Singhi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 18(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 242/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Bhavesh Rajendra Singhi C/O Income Tax Officer Sanket Shah, Ward 18(1)(2), Flat 1902, 19Th Floor, Vs. Matru Mandir Building, Olympia Tower A Wing, Grant Road, N.M. Joshi Marg, Byculla (West), Mumbai-400 007. Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aqops 9227 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Suyog Bhave, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Suyog Bhave, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR

Section 139(5)Section 35ASection 80GSection 80G(1)(ii)Section 80G(2)Section 80G(5)(vi)

also rejected the claim of the assesseee. According to the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not file revise return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) also held that in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze ... India) Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC). The Assessing Officer is not empowered to entertain claim of deduction otherwise than filing revised return of income by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of PCIT

DCIT 3(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Mukund Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground no 3 is allowed

ITA 1794/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Raj Mehta(ACA), A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Sonia Kumar, D.R

Section 115JSection 14A

sale basis to Mukand Vijaynagar Steels Ltd. in a scheme arrangement and amalgamation and computed Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG). Thereafter, assessee again filed revised return of income on 29.03.2019 declaring income under normal provisions and under section 115JB of the Act at nil. During scrutiny proceedings

Bates India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection of assessee for A

ITA 1201/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Sanyam Joshi (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 40A(2)(b)

recorded that the complete details were available before the Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings and filed complete details in the revised return of income filed on 30.08.2008, after which the assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Act. The AO framed the assessment under

Bates India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Kolkata

In the result, the cross objection of assessee for A

ITA 1200/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Visanji (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Sanyam Joshi (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 40A(2)(b)

Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1014/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.1014/Mum/2015 Tata Communication Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, (Formerly Videsh Income Tax-1(3) Sanchar Nigan Limited) Aayakar Bhavan, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacv2808C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Achal Sharma &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 35D

Rs.11,60,63,81,732/-. The A.O stated in the aforesaid order that the case was reopened on the following ground: “(i) In the revised return of income, for AY 2006-07 in Note No.1, the assessee company has submitted as follows: “Excess provisions written back in the „other income

Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5185/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2005-06

For Appellant: J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Achal Sharma &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 35D

Tata Communicatiosn Ltd ( Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4486/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2003-04

For Appellant: J.D. Mistry &For Respondent: Achal Sharma &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234DSection 35D

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Bangalore vs. Mr. M R Seetharam, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 256/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Naginchand Khincha

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153Section 153A

October 2006. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued. In response to notice u/s 148 the assessee filed letter dated 23/01/2015, stating that revised return filed on 27/03/2009 may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice issued under section 148. Subsequently, notices under section

Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2019/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5597/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 5598/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 2019/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Mccain Foods India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit/Dcit, Ground Floor, The Crescent, Plot Circle-16(2), No. 1 To 7, Lsc Lado Sarai, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110030 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm4861G Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 40Section 92C

same was disallowed in the original tax return filed on October 12, 2010 under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the revised return the deduction of the aforesaid ITA Nos. 5597 & 5598/Del/2018 4 McCain Foods India Pvt. Ltd. amount was taken on protective basis on professional advice that

Mccain Foods (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5598/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 40Section 92C

Mccain Foods (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5597/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 40Section 92C

Addlcit, Special Range-9, New Delhi vs. Vserve Business Solution P.Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4637/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 90

assessee’s claim on the ground that such claim was not made either in the original return of income or by way of filing revised return of income. Further, he observed, the assessee did not furnish any certificate from the foreign tax authorities in terms with section ... assessee’s claim on the following three reasons: (1) The relief was not claimed either in the original return of income or by filing revised return of income. (2) No certificate/order from the foreign authorities in terms of section 90 was furnished. (3) The assessee has paid tax under section

The JCIT(OSD), Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ecs Biztech Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1203/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)

following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the revised return. 2. The Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in law and on facts in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the La. CIT(A), Ahmedabad ought not to have issued the direction to consider the revised return. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.” 3. The brief facts

The JCIT(OSD), Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ecs Infotech Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1202/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)

following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the revised return. 2. The Ld. CIT-(A) has erred in law and on facts in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that ... facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), Ahmedabad ought not to have issued the direction to consider the revised return. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.” 3. The brief facts

Rajendra Shamrao Patil, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (4), Jalgaon

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1398/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1398/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rajendra Shamrao Patil, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(4), Jalgaon. Flat No.05, Dharmaraj Plaza Apartment, Gangapur Road, Old Gangapur Naka, Nashik-422005. Pan : Abipp2109A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Saumitra Gokhale Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-2 Nashik’S Order Dated 01.07.2019 Passed In Case No.Nsk/Cit(A)-2/141/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Delay Of 12 Days In Filing Of The Instant Appeal Is Condoned Since Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate In Light Of His Averments In Condonation Affidavit Dated 19.09.2019 Attributing Reasons Thereof To Communication Gap Between Auditor & Arguing Counsel.

For Appellant: Smt. Saumitra GokhaleFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 143(3)Section 68

income from undisclosed sources and made addition of Rs.10,12,177/- on account closing balance of cash in hand u/s 68, mere filing of revise return of income during demonetization period. 5.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and rival contention. On perusal of the same ... seen that, the original return was filed on 28.08.2015 and revised return was filed on 10.12.2016 with the intention to declare the closing balance of cash in hand of Rs.10,12,177/-. The revised return was filed during the demonetization period from 8th November to 30th December, 2016. The appellant

Sameer Rajiv Karambelkar, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nashik

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

ITA 703/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Section 69C

information was not appearing in the profit and loss account. It is also not disputed that the assessee furnished a revised return of income and the AO held the profit and loss account and balance sheet was entirely different as compared to original return of income. In such circumstances

The DCIT Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara vs. M/S. Manpasand Beverages Pvt.Ltd., Vadodara

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1631/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1630-1631/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT. D.R with Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 80I

assessee has filed its return of income dated 30 September 2012 which was subsequently revised dated 11 February 2013. The assessee in the revised return of income has declared an income of ₹ 31,70,230.00 after claiming the deduction of ₹ 6,30,86,410 and ₹1,25,000 under

The DCIT Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara vs. M/S. Manpasand Beverages Pvt.Ltd., Vadodara

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1630/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1630-1631/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT. D.R with Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 80I