← 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
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
89
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
84
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
76
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

M/S Atop Fasteners (P) Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, C-1(1), Chandigarh

ITA 1616/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT
Section 133ASection 250(6)

impounded, inventory of cash & stock also prepared—AO was satisfied and accepted Rs.1.5 crore and passed assessment order for AY. 2007-08—In revised return, for AY 2008-09, Assessee surrendered sum ofRs.3 crore only instead of Rs.5 crore which he admitted during course of survey—Merley because Assessee

Shri Om Prakash Jonnagiri, Bangalore vs. ITO, Ncw-16(5), Chennai

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

ITA 818/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.818/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mr.Om Prakash Jonnagiri, V. The Income Tax Officer, #13, First Cross, Non-Corporate Ward-16(5), Kamakshi Layout, Room No.523, V Floor, Kammanahalli Link Road, Wanaparthy Block, Gottegere, Ayakar Bhavan, No.121, Bangalore-560 083. Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai-34. [Pan: Aerpj 2424 C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.G.Baskar, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 54

case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), any fresh claim :: 4 :: can be sought only through a revised return and not through a letter or representation, etc. Hence, rejected the arguments of the assessee and sustained the additions made by the AO towards ... sale agreement, only on the ground that the claim of the assessee cannot be entertained unless a claim is made by filing revised return. Otherwise, the AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) never disputed the fact that the assessee has received sale consideration of Rs.78 lakhs from sale

Luxora Infrastructure P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/MUM/2020[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 68

passed u/s. 143(3)/153A in case of assessee, wherein, prior to search conducted on 19.03.2015, assessment u/s. 143(3) was completed accepting the revised returned loss of Rs. 54,36,891/-. Since these crucial facts were not considered while passing the appeal order on 31.10.2019, wherein, ground

M/S Netra Software Technologies Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC) (Assessss Is Assessed to Tax With ACIT Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 306/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR), ITAT, Bangalore
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 23(1)(c)Section 24

Appeals) 5, Bangalore be quashed And Losses of Rs. 1,37,90,289/- be allowed to be carried forward as claimed in the revised return of income. The appellant prays accordingly.” 2. The facts of the case are that assessee filed a loss return of Rs.1 ... However, the said return was revised to rectify certain mistakes on 7.3.2013 declaring a loss of Rs.1,37,90,289. In the said revised return, the assessee had claimed interest paid on loan taken for construction of commercial property amounting to Rs.1,38,31,621 Page

Reliance Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Taxpayer Unit-2, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2876/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 28

specified in the said letter. The claim of the assessee is not considered now. The assessee has made the claim by not filing the revised return but filing submissions during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the claim is not acceptable in view of the decision in the case of Goetze India

DCIT (Ltu)-2, Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2344/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

specified in the said letter. The claim of the assessee is not considered now. The assessee has made the claim by not filing the revised return but filing submissions during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the claim is not acceptable in view of the decision in the case of Goetze India

Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 1645/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

specified in the said letter. The claim of the assessee is not considered now. The assessee has made the claim by not filing the revised return but filing submissions during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, the claim is not acceptable in view of the decision in the case of Goetze India

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 465/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessee claimed Rs.9,69,00,000/- as expenditure in the original return of income and excluded the same from Sales revenue in the revised return of income contending that the same is diversion by overriding title. 8.12.3. Ld.CIT.D.R placed his reliance on certain observations made by Hon'ble Supreme

Mysore Minerals Limited (Now Known As Karnataka State Minerals Corporation Limited), Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 464/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessee claimed Rs.9,69,00,000/- as expenditure in the original return of income and excluded the same from Sales revenue in the revised return of income contending that the same is diversion by overriding title. 8.12.3. Ld.CIT.D.R placed his reliance on certain observations made by Hon'ble Supreme

Dcm Shriiram Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addi. CIT Special Range-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3739/DEL/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 244Section 244ASection 246ASection 254

interest due to the assessee was withheld. Another refund was determined by the second intimation issued dated 13.10.2007, after the assessee had filed revised return of income on 13.10.2007. The total refund due was Rs.8,20,15,357/- comprising of Rs.8,16,64,925/- determined vide order dated 13.10.2007 & Rs.3

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore vs. Shanthi Gears Limited, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3068/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3068/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80I

held that, once original return is filed u/s.139(1) within due date specified under the Act, then any deduction claimed in the revised return filed within due date specified u/s.139(5) shall be allowed. We further, noted that the learned CIT(A) had also taken a support from the decision ... original return and not by way of original return, further when the original return of income was filed within the due date, then the revised return filed, thereafter before completion of assessment proceedings is to be considered by the Assessing Officer, because the Act has been given opportunity

Ecl Finance Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. - 3(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 899/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

income of the assessee at Rs.2,52,39,54,290 as against Rs. 1,94,95,27,610 declared by the assessee in its revised return of income filed dated 31.03.2015. Ground No.1 - Transfer Pricing Adjustments a. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case ... 29/11/2013 Return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act 2 5/9/2014 Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act issued 3 31/3/2015 Revised return of income filed u/s 139(4) of the Act 4 19/1/2016 Reference u/s 92CA(1) of the Act made to Transfer Pricing Officer

Measage Gram Sewa and Viklang Shayta Sanstha Regd, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, (Exemption), Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

ITA 619/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 4

section (5) were not applicable as the assessee did not furnish the report in Form No. 10B on March 6, 1987, with a revised return and non-filing of the above audit report was not a defect covered under the categories specified in the Explanation to Section 139(9). This ... retu'rn invalid. 15. The view of the lower authorities that the audit report submitted on March 6, 1987, not being filed with the revised return did not satisfy the condition in Section 12A and that the provisions of Sub-sections (5) and (9) of Section 139 were not applicable

Kotak Mahindra Asset Management Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -Circle-14(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1074/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1074/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Kotak Mahindra Asset बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-14(2)(1) Management Co. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Vs. 27 Bkc, Bandra Kurla 400020. Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaack5576C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Farrokh Irani Revenue By: Shri Shambu Yadav (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By The Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 14{2) 1 Amounting To Rs.29,07,525 Under Section 14A By Invoking The Provisions Of Rule 8D(2)(Ii).

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Shri Shambu Yadav (DR)
Section 14A

assessee filed its return of income on 17.11.2017 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.60,39,06,128/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed its revised return of income on 29.03.2019 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.60,32,87,230/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notices

Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 596/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalediamond Dye-Chem Ltd Vs. Acit, Circle – 6(2)(2) (Now Merged With Basf 5Th Floor, Aayakar India Ltd) Bhavan, Plot No. 37, Chandivali Mumbai – 400 001. Farm Road, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd3478N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Dr.Yogesh Kamat, Cit Dr & Sri.Satya Pinisetty.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Mr.Nitesh Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat, CIT DR &
Section 143(3)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

India Ltd., however, the assessee has not taken consequential steps, such as, surrendering the old PAN No. and applying new PAN no., not filed revised return of income with new PAN, no information was submitted whether ROC was intimated the fact of amalgamation and revised financial statements were filed. Further

M/S Star Realcon Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr

ITA/31/2022HC Delhi28 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN

Section 38(3)(a)Section 42Section 59(2)

arises for consideration. 6. However, for determining the issue at hand, the following facts are required to be noticed: i) The assessee filed its revised return on 10.07.2015 for the fourth quarter of the Financial Year (FY) 2014-15 [hereafter referred to as the "relevant tax period"]. ii) Since ... credit; which was an option available under Section 38(3)(b) of the 2004 Act. vii) The assessee, while filing its revised return on 10.07.2015, had claimed a larger amount as the refund, i.e., Rs. 2,56,57,120/- in terms of Section 38 of the 2004 Act. viii

Aniruddh Rinki Gandhi, Baroda vs. DCIT (Intl. Taxn), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 321/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Aniruddhrinki Gandhi Dcit (Intl.Taxn.) 14, Vaikunh Apartment Vs Baroda. Laxminarayan Co-Op. Society Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan : Bbnpg 1052 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 21.01.2019 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 13/Intl.Taxn./Ahd/75/2017-18 Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Assessee’S Grounds Of Appeal Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 54

Asst.Year 2015-16, the assessee has filed his return of income on 31.8.2015 and the same was revised by filing a Revised Return on 05.11.2015. Assessee has received a sum of Rs.2.40 crores against sale of property as per sale deed dated 2.12.2014 from Krupesh Patel and others. The payments ... filed original return. As part of the sale consideration of the sale of the property was received on 12.10.2015, the assessee filed a Revised return claiming the entire benefit under section 54/54F of the Act. 6. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment. The AO held that

Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

ITA 916/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bharat Diamond Bourse, Dy. Cit (Exemption)-1, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacb 2358 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. R.K Sinha &For Respondent: Mr. S.G. Menon, DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 254Section 263

before the Assessing Officer, as there is no provisions under the Income Tax Act to make amendment/modification in the return income without filing a revised return within the time tallowed under Section 139 of the Act. In the present case the Assessing Other has modified the income of the assessee

Sri Basavaprabhu Appasaheb Siranadgouda, Bagalkot vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Vijayapura

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

ITA 1906/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal R Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 11Section 154Section 24Section 264Section 4Section 56

assessment year under consideration to be exempt by way of revised Page 2 of 5 return of income. The Ld.AO did not consider the revised return filed by assessee and accepted the original return of income. Against the assessment, assessee filed application under section 154 of the Act, which ... return of income filed the assessee only. No new additions were made by the AO. The AR’s contention was to accept the revised return of income but it was beyond the time specified under the Act. Hence, it cannot be accepted as valid return of income. There

DCIT, Moradabad vs. Sh. Jubilant Life Sciences Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6196/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

impugned assessment year. While confirming the addition, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the assessee did not claim the deduction by way of a revised return of income. Thus, according to him, the Assessing Officer could not have entertained assessee’s claim. Accordingly, he upheld the decision of the Assessing ... claim of the assessee. It is evident, the reason for disallowing assessee’s claim is, it was not made through a revised return of income. As we find, identical issue came up for consideration before the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case in assessment years