“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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no order as

ITAT/17/2021HC Calcutta21 Feb 2022

Bench: :

Section 115Section 115JSection 2(24)Section 260A

assessee before the Assessing Officer by filing a revised computation instead of filing a revised 4 return since the time to file the revised return had lapsed, for claiming to treat the incentive subsidies in question as capital receipts instead of revenue receipts as claimed in original return. The Assessing ... clear that its decision was restricted to the power of the assessing authority to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by a revised return, and did not impinge on the power of the Appellate Tribunal under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Hon’ble Supreme Court

DCIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6862/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

Besides, we note that in the present case, though the claim for deduction was not raised in the original return or by filing revised return, the Appellant – Assessee had indeed addressed a letter claiming such deduction before the assessment could be completed. However, even if we proceed on the basis

Dy CIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6860/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

Dy CIT Circle-2 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Foods and Inns Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6859/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitin KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 14ASection 40Section 43(5)

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 971/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

person fails to make the return required by a notice under section 22(2) and he has further not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (3) of the same section, the Income- tax Officer must make an assessment under this provision.” and Tribunals relied upon

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 970/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Om Prakash Jakhotia, Telangna vs. ACIT, CC-26, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 968/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

Travelport International Operations Limited, Berkshire vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Int. Tax-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9711/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Anand, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 154Section 40Section 40a

issue airline tickets; etc. 6. For the AY 2016-17, the appellant filed its return of income declaring NIL income on 29.9.2016 and thereafter revised return of income on 29.3.2018 declaring NIL income and claiming a refund of Rs. 9,68,98,320/-. The assessee declared that it had received

S K G Refractories Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 342/HYD/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2006-07 Skg Refractories Limited, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500063. Income Tax, Circle 3(2), Pan : Aadcs4040G. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Samuel Nagadesi. Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam. Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.02.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Samuel NagadesiFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam

Section 139(5)Section 143Section 154Section 154(1)(b)Section 176Section 43BSection 43B(5)

filed on 29.11.2006 much after the amendment to section 43B by way of insertion of explanation 3(c). The assessee ought to have filed revised return of income on or before 31.03.2008 u/s 139(5) of the IT Act. Instead of filing revised return, the assessee filed petition ... w.e.f. 01.04.2006. The assessment year consideration is 2006- 07. If the assessee wanted to claim any deduction he ought to have filed revised return of income before the due date. A reading of these provisions indicate that w.e.f, 01.04.1999, additional claims cannot be entertained and rectified u/s 154. In this

Asstt. CIT, CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. National Standard India Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 695/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR)

Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

income to the tune of Rs.1,18,85,129/- as against the return loss of Rs.6,85,53,400/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing loss to the tune of Rs.7,93,86,493/-. The penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated as the assessee

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result additional ground raised by the assessee vide additional ground number 3 and ground number 5 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2439/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tata Chemicals Limited Tax 2(3), Bombay House Aayakar Bhavan, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaact4059M Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar Respondent By : Shri Milind Chavan, Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chavan, DR

Section 41Section 80

effective date of amalgamation was 1 June 2004 and the appointed date was 1 April 2002. Based on this the assessee filed revised return of income wherein the claim u/s 80 IB, was not made but , disclosure was made that the same will be claimed at the time of assessment ... computation of claim u/s 80 IB of the act were rejected. Accordingly the 80 IB profit as Tata Chemicals Ltd.; AY 03-04 per revised return of ₹ 253,196,667 was converted into a loss of ₹ 833,951,044/–. 06. Based on the above facts the assessee is aggrieved that

Gambhir Chorida, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 4(4), Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 669/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246(1)Section 51

However, the revenue authorities have added the same to the income of the assessee since the assessee offered the same in the revised return of income. 2. The Registry has noted a delay of 186 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee ... assessee did not offer this income in the original return of income, however, the said amount of Rs.10 Lacs was offered to tax in revised return of income filed by the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings. 5. However, subsequently the assessee preferred further appeal before

Radhika Goel, Parwanoo vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1173/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 250(6)

that no incriminating material was found during the course of search. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) was further not justified to consider the revised return filed by the appellant after the search which was in fact an invalid return. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified ... undisclosed income M/s Radhika Traders cannot be accepted in view of the Hon'ble ITSC's order discussed above. Further, the cognizance of revised return filed declaring LTG as its income and payment of taxes cannot be ignored. There is no provision of the Act which prohibits the AO from

Radhika Goel, Parwanoo vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1172/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 250(6)

Anabond Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT CPC, Bangalore

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 418/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Bohra (CA) a/w Shri BFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 80Section 80l

deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act while filing its Original Return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Act and subsequently filed a Revised Return u/s 139(4) of the Act claiming the said deduction along with the Audit Report in Form-10CCB of the Act. 4. For that ... upload mandatory Form No.10CCB. Therefore, the deduction so claimed was denied in the intimation issued u/s 143(1) on 14.03.2017. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income u/s 139(4) on 29.03.2017 along with Form No.10CCB and claimed deduction u/s 80-IC in the same manner. 4. The return

Jaswant Singh Uberoi, New Delhi vs. Joint CIT Spl. Range - 11, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7015/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 94(7)

appeal are that in this case the original return of income declaring income of Rs. 31,59,720/- was filed on 28.07.2016. Thereafter a revised return of income declaring total income of Rs. Nil was filed on 17.10.2016. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Thereafter a notice

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Bip Developers (P) Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITAT/165/2021HC Calcutta10 Feb 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : February 10, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. S.N. Dutta, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Mr. Indranil Banerjee, Adv. Mr. S. Rudra, Adv. … For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18Th December, 2019 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In Ita No. 1366/Kol/2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration: A) Whether The Itat Has Jurisdiction Or Authority To Override The Statutory Provision Of Law As By The

Section 139(5)Section 260A

Whether the Assessing Officer has passed a correct order in rejecting the request of the assessee for revised computation of income without filing a revised return of income as required under section 139(5) of the IT Act, 1961 and the ITAT wrongly passed the order allowing such claim ... assessee when such relief was not claimed by the assessee before the assessing 3 officer even in the original return or by way of revised return but only by way of a letter submitted during the assessment proceeding. The assessing officer non-suited the assessee on the ground that such

Mr. Kishore Nandlal Chabria, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-16, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1554/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1554/Mum/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Mr. Kishore Nandlal Pcit-16 Room No.437, 4Th Floor Chabria Vs. 51, 5Th Floor, Radheya Aayakar Bhavan, Building, 14Th Road, Khar Maharishi Karve Road, West, Mumbai-400052. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpc5779R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Singh Revenue By: Shri Vinay Sinha (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 07.07.2020 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act. 1961 Is Void Ab Initio Being Had In Law Based On Assumptions & Wrong Facts & Without Jurisdiction. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-16, Mumbai Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 When

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay SinghFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

that the assessee filed his return of income on 7.08.2015 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.6321550/- and thereafter the assessee file the revised return of income on 11.05.2016 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.3516450/-. The assessment was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS

Kasthuri Medias Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Additional Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 6

forward in the current year at Rs.1,36,05,681 as against Rs.2,17,87,364 returned by the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return on 30.11.2020 returning the current year business loss of Rs.1,91,61,450 towards unabsorbed depreciation. Against the revised return, intimation