“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

Rieter India Pvt.Ltd, Satara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1947/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rieter India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Gat No.768/2, Circle-5, Shindewadi-Bhor Road, Pune Village Wing, Taluka Khandala, District Satara – 412 801 Pan : Aaacr3556P Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)

Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Bilcare Limited Vs. ACIT (2021) 211 TTJ 0429 (Pune) considered a situation in which the assessee in the revised return made a suo motu disallowance of depreciation. The revised return was accepted by the AO. However, at the time of computation ... considered them as operating costs. The Pune Bench held that when the AO accepted the revised return by taking the resultant income/loss for the purposes of computation of total income, there was no rationale in going backwards and adopt the 15 Rieter India Private Limited figure of depreciation

Mr. Ajit Mahadeo Vaze, Mumbai vs. ITO-16(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 35/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj Gurjar

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

moto offered the relevant income to tax when it came to his knowledge in the assessment proceedings. The Appellant could not have filed a revised return as the return filed by the Appellant was belated. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that there was deliberate concealment of income ... return was filed belatedly on 30.09.2015 also suggests that the consultant was not diligent, and that the Appellant could not have filed a revised return. In our view, the fact that mistakes could be discovered merely on reconciliation of receipts and tax deducted at source as reflected in Form 26AS

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1669/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1667 To 1669/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2014-15 To 2016-17) Dy. Commissioner Of बिधम/ M/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. 11Th Income Tax Floor, 1102, Parinee Vs. Central Circle-2(2), Old Crescenzo, G Block, Plot Cgo Building, 8Th Floor, M. No.C38/39, Behind Mca, K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv6538K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -48, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2014-15 To 2016-17. Ita. No.1667/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.07.2021 Passed By The Cit(A)-48, Mumbai Relevant To The A.Y. 2014- 15. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Whether The Cit (A) Was Justified Against The Ao’S Action Not Considering The Claim Of Export Incentive Of Rs. ,66,70,644/- By

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

return of income on 25.09.2014 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.104,57,28,450/- for the A.Y.2014-15. The assessee has filed the revised return of income on 31.03.2016 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.88,23,78,030/-. The return was processed ... contended that the said claim was not made by the assesse while filing the return of income u/s. 139(1) or in the revised return of income. While dealing with this issue the AO has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1668/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

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

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1667/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)

Satish Vishambhar Datwani, Mumbai vs. ITO-21(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1508/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhsatish Vishambhar Vs. Ito – 21(3)(2) Datwani Piramal Chambers 63/1492, New Adarsh Lalbaug, Parel, Nagar, Worli, Mumbai – 400012. Mumbai - 400025. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajspd0518K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Mr.B K Bagchi.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.B K Bagchi.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

return of income for the A.Y 2013-14 on 30.09.2013 disclosing a total income of Rs.8,96,340/-.The assessee has filed the revised return of income on 10.04.2014 and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny under

Kishore Krishn Patki, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Cir. 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1157/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Sheth, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Bharti Singh, Sr. A.R. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

income on 27.03.2014 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.12,64,850/- for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee filed the revised return of income on 31.03.2015 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.23,47,581/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices under section ... year earned the income by the salary etc. The assessee was asked to specify the reason for the enhancement of his income in the revised return. The assessee explained that he received the commission income amounting to Rs.46,18,800/- out of which Rs.36,62,000/- was deposited

ITO 28 (1)(5), Mumbai vs. Shri. Hari Bachubhai Mujat, Mumbai

ITA 6855/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 28

reversed interest on capital by reducing it from work in progress, then certainly exclusion made by the partners in their individual hands in revised return is in accordance with law. Therefore, we direct the AO to verify theses facts and take an appropriate decision in the light of our observation ... case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee has included interest on capital in original returns, whereas the same has been excluded in revised return for which the assessee has filed necessary evidence and also explanations. No doubt, the taxability of interest on partners‟ capital

Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(2), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3485/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm Maharashtra State Road The Addl. Commissioner Of Development Corporation Ltd. Income Tax Priyadarshini Park, Central Circle 5(2) Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, Napeansea Road, Mumbai-400 036 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm6833C

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat Shah &For Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas, Spl. Counsel

Section 143Section 143(3)

converted into equity share capital of the assessee company. Therefore, the guarantee fee was considered as expenditure allowable to the assessee. In the revised return, such claim was made. The learned assessing officer disallowed the above claim stating that the entire loss claimed on this account of ₹ 9000 283 lakhs

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 5075/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5075/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Maharashtra State Electricity बिधम/ Acit, Circle-10(1) Distribution Co. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. Prakashgad, 1St Floor, Anant Karve Road, Mumbai- Kanekar Marg, Station Road, 400020. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecm2933K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Niraj D. Sheth & Ketan Ved Revenue By: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.05.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2006-07 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1:1 The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Upholding The Penalty Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S. 271 (1) (C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj D. Sheth & Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)

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

income of Rs. Nil after claiming set off brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.111,78,92,149/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed the revised return of income on 29.10.2007 declaring total income at Rs.Nil after claiming set off of brought forward losses amounting to Rs.111,78,92,149/-. Thereafter

Smt. G. Vijaya, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed and the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 948/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITP, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sameer Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

during the course of search conducted in the hands of the assessee’s husband and the same was surrendered by the assessee in the revised return filed on 29.5.2009. The A.O, after carrying out certain analysis, took the view that the trading liability declared by the assessee is in excess

Smt. G. Vijaya, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed and the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 947/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITP, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sameer Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

M/S Sai Apartments & Infrastructure, Panchkula vs. DCIT, C-6(1), Mohali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 940/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Chandigarh27 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjit Singh, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36

return was filed taking the figures from the very same software tally as considered by the Survey Team. However, time for filing the Revised return was available to the assessee. It was re-iterated that the record referred to by the Survey Team was downloaded from the computer software ... provisions of the Act, it was his submission that the assessee having filed its return on 30.09.2011 was very much entitled to file a revised return as the time for filing the revised return had not expired. The mistake, it was filed was rectifiable. It was submitted that he does

Gujarat Rohit Samaj Trust, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2161/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2161/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Gujarat Rohit Samaj Trust, D.C.I.T, 33, New Chandranagar Society, Vs. Cpc, B/H Supath-Ii, Bangalore. Union Bank Old Wadaj, Ahmedabad-380013. Pan: Aaatg7340R

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 164

treating intimation dated 28-3- 2002 as being an order of assessment and, thus, denying the assessee a statutory right to file a revised return within the period of limitation. The revised return was filed within the period of limitation and was hence, valid. In those circumstances, the finding recorded ... Commissioner under section 263 that the revised return was non est in law, could not be sustained and was, accordingly, held to be bad in law. [Para 12] 10.1 In view of the above, we hold that the intimation generated under section

Shri Gurinder Kahlon, Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 643/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

total income at Rs.13,25,098/-. The assessment was completed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the IT Act by considering this revised return of income declaring the income at Rs.13,25,098/-. In other words the AO completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s

M/S Rahul Raj Estates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Central - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3523/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 115JSection 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)

entire receipts worked out on the basis of 15 red colored notebook in AY 2011-12 and after due application of mind, rejected the revised return of income for AY 2012-13. Assessment on the basis of return of income filed u/s 153C of the Act with additional income disclosed ... Assessment order clearly shows that the AO has not taken into consideration the details of undisclosed income submitted by the Assessee, vide the manual revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act. The AO has held the manual return to be invalid for non-payment of Self Assessment Tax, without

M/S Rahul Raj Estates Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Central - 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3522/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 115JSection 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)

Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 349/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 253(7)Section 92CSection 92C(2)

project management, supply of technology and equipment and supervision of erection and commissioning of cement plants and related equipments. The assessee e-filed its revised return of income for assessment year 2017-18 on 05.04.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 66,51,32,950/-. 4.1 During assessment year

Help, Delhi vs. Ward Exemption 1(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 239/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Ms. Rinky Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 11(2)Section 143(1)

record are that assessee is a Trust which filed its original return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 on 28.09.2018. Thereafter, it filed revised return of income on 09.03.2019 declaring total income at Rs.NIL. In the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide order ... beyond control of the assessee but the same was filed on 09/03/2019 by the assessee with reasons for the delay, very much before the revised return of income accompanied the said form was electronically processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 09/02/2020 for this assessment year

Pranav Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Int. Tax. Circle-2(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 8812/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

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

total income of Rs.NIL and claiming refund of Rs.1,57,660/-. The A.O. has noted that during the course of assessment proceedings assessee filed revised return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,17,00,870/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny. Thereafter, assessment was framed under section ... vide order dated 27.11.2017 and the total income offered by revised return of income amounting to Rs.1,17,00,870/- was accepted. On the aforesaid income of Rs.1,17,00,870/- that was offered by the assessee in the revised return of income, the A.O. vide penalty order passed under