“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

Ashish Life Science P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT-Circle-9(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 964/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 964/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ashish Life Science Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit-Cir, 9(1)(2) 210, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar 213, Laxmi Plaza Industrial Vs. Estate, New Link Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Andheri, Mumbai-400053. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb4093N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhaval Shah Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.04.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Nfac)”] In The Relevant A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing The Order U/S. 250 Of The Act Through National Faceless Appeal Center Which Is Bad In Law & Invalid. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act Without. Considering The Written Submissions Filed By The Appellant. As Such, The Order Is

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murty

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee filed its return of income on 28.11.2017 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.6,25,44,880/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed its revised return of income on 18.05.2018 declaring the same income which he had filed earlier. The return was processed

Sanjay Bhavanji Rambhia, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1780/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjay Bhavanji Rambhia, Vs. Ito-Circle 16(3)(1) A-301, Platinum The Residence, Mumbai 400020 Tejpal Scheme Road No.5, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai 400057 Appellant. Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay BiyaniFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Shrote

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80G

been constantly changing his claim of deduction in respect of amount of Rs1,11,111/- as per his convenience without filing a valid revised return for such subsequent claims. In this regard reference is drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India ... wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Court that any revised claim before the A0 has to be in the form of revised return which is not the fact in the instant case. The assessee has not filed any revised return and the time to file any revised

Sopariwala Exports, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 1271/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 148Section 23Section 24Section 24(3)

originally filed may please be considered as the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T Act. In response to the revised return of income, the A.O issued a notice to the assessee along with a copy of reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. The assessee objected

Russel Reynolds Associates Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 1166/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1166/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2014-15)

Section 143(3)

shelter of Article 12. It was submitted that in the original return of the assessee and entire receipts were submitted to tax but the revised return only the revenue received under the head royalty has been offered to tax and which shows that there was change of stands without ... arguments submitted on behalf of the revenue that assessee cannot change stand as first all the receipts were submitted for tax but under revised return only royalty income was submitted because it is settled proposition of law that there cannot be any estoppel upon the assessee. If a particular income

M/S Russel Reynolds Associates Inc., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

The appeals are allowed

ITA 1165/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1166/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2014-15)

Section 143(3)

Mailanchikkal Abdul Muneem, Chennai vs. ITO International Taxation 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2627/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2627/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 & धनकर अपील सं/ Wta Nos.: 61/Chny/2017 & 75/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri Mailanchikkal Abdul The Income Tax Officer / Muneem, V. The Wealth Tax Officer, Ff-1, 48, Chander Plaza Arcot International Taxation Ward Road, Saligramam, 1(2), Chennai – 600 093. Chennai. Pan: Aalpm 4410F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 16(3)Section 2(14)Section 54F

that as under: “Whether an assessee can amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return – Held no” Therefore, in the absence of any revised return, the alternate claim, which is an after-thought, cannot be entertained and hence

Masscorp Limited, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1285/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1285/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Masscorp Ltd, 38/5 D3 Block Midc, Chinchwad Pune- 411 019. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaecm5180G बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dcit, Circle-10, Pune Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 133ASection 143(3)

under. “6. In ground No.1 the appellant contends that the learned A.O. has erred in assessing income at Rs.30,09,46,400/- as against revised returned income of Rs. 30,85,97,718/- without giving proper and sufficient opportunity and without providing the copies of the documents impounded during

Tmf Holding Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Mumbai

ITA 1628/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 47

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) and book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act at a loss of ₹.16,91,83,098/-. Subsequently, revised return of income was filed on 30.03.2017 revising the book profits u/s. 115JB of the Act at loss of ₹.17,04,50,098/-. Subsequently scrutiny

Siddheshwar Industries Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 760/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.760/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Siddheshwar Industries Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd., 2(2), Pune. Plot No.A-50, H- Block, Midc, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aagcs4976E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav Date Of Hearing 09.03.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 23.10.2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned C.I.T. [A] 12 Has Erred By Wrongly Enhance The Amount Of Rs.2,95,00,000/- By Disallowing The Claim Of Deduction U/S 43B In Revised Return Of Income Filed U/S 153A Of The I T Act. The Aforesaid Addition Being Arbitrary, Perverse, Based On Surmises & Conjecture

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234Section 43B

C.I.T. [A] 12 has erred by wrongly enhance the amount of Rs.2,95,00,000/- by disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 43B in revised return of income filed u/s 153A of the I T Act. The aforesaid addition being arbitrary, perverse, based on surmises and conjecture 2 the learned

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1036/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

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

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1035/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITA 1655/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Ms. Divya Bajpai, CIT

Section 14ASection 28Section 43BSection 44

T.Act, 1961 by the appellant itself in the original Return of income. However, in & C.O. 112/PUN/2017 Bajaj Allianz General A.Y. 2007-08 the revised Return of income, the amount was claimed on the ground that there was no mechanism to pay the amount. The main plank of the argument

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Pune

ITA 1645/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla &For Respondent: Ms. Divya Bajpai, CIT

Section 14ASection 28Section 43BSection 44

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both, assessee’s appeal and revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4515/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & S. Rifaur Rahman ()

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

entities and managing of reality assets. The assessee e-filed its return for the assessment year under consideration on 28-09-2012 and a revised return of income was e-filed on 31-03-2014 declaring total income of Rs.1,61,80,95,820/- which was processed under section

Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both, assessee’s appeal and revenue’s appeal are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4448/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & S. Rifaur Rahman ()

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

M/S Opto Cardiac Care Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1046/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Shivaprasad Reddy &For Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik

Section 10ASection 40

failed to consider the same, since he was of the view that the fresh claim could be made by the assessee by filing revised return of income. He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India Ltd (supra) has specifically observed that the order ... filing revised computation of income. The AO rejected the claim on the reasoning that the said claim should be made by filing revised return of income and further the Form No.56F was not filed. However, we notice that the assessee has uploaded Form No.56F electronically

M/S Opto Cardiac Care Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 1045/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Shivaprasad Reddy &For Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik

Section 10ASection 40

Niranjan Lal Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 6244/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shuklaas S.M.C. (Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Mohan SinhaFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash

Section 1Section 139Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 5

authority grossly erred in framing the assessment order on the basis of Original Return filed of appellant assessee and not on the basis of Revised Return. The learned CIT (A) has also erred in confirming the assessment order framed on the basis of Original Return. 3. That the learned assessing ... authority erred in not accepting income of the assessee declared by him in Revised Return. The learned assessing authority further erred in determining the total income at Rs.29,35,650/-. The learned CIT (A) has also erred in confirming the said income and in not accepting the income

Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rjesh Kumar, Am ]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

assessee filed its return of income for the relevant assessment year on 26.11.2014 reflecting total income of Rs.4,94,33,170/- and subsequently filed revised return on 16.04.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 4,23,15,150/-. Thereafter, the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income ... return of income for AY 2014-15 on 26-11-2014 declaring total income of Rs.4,94,33,170/-. Subsequently, the assessee e-filed revised return declaring total income of Rs.4,23,15,150/-. On perusal of the return it was observed that the assessee had claimed deduction

M/S Resoive & Fire India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 841/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 201Section 206C(7)Section 215Section 220(2)

Apex Court has held that assessing officer cannot entertain the claim made by the assessee otherwise than by filing a revised return. Accordingly, he rejected the submissions made by the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and Ld.CIT(A) allowed the fresh claim made by the assessee