“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

Shahi Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 843/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi17 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 37Section 40A(2)Section 80ISection 92BSection 92C

return, had never claimed deduction towards the amounts paid by it as "cess". She submits that neither any such claim made by filing any revised return before the Assessing Officer. She therefore relied upon the decision of the Suprcme Courl in Goetze (lndia) Ltd. y. C/f [2006J ... deduction in respect of amounts paid by it towards "cess" in their original return of income nor did the Appellant - Assessee file any revised return of income, according to us, this was no bar to the Commissioner (Appeals) or the ITAT to consider and allow such deductions to the Appellant

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Tirupati vs. Saptagiri Grameena Bank, Chittoor

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in above terms

ITA 39/HYD/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2007-08 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Saptagiri Grameena Income-Tax, Bank, Chittoor. Circle – 1, Hyderabad. Pan – Aaajs 0279D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Assessee By: Shri K. Venkata Karthik Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/01/2022

For Appellant: Shri K. Venkata KarthikFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 194ASection 40

person- (a) fails to make the return required 2 under sub- section (1) of section 139] and has not made a return or a revised return under subsection (4) or sub- section (5) of that section,] or (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under

Shoreline Hotel Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 258/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr.Anuj Kisnadwala. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Vivek Upadhay. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 on 30.09.2014 with a total income of Rs. 84,940/-The assessee has filed the revised return of income on 20.11.2014 with the same total income but with rectification in claim of TDS and the return of income was processed

Hdfc Bank Ltd (Successor to Businss of Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 374/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Hon’Ble) & Shri Saktijit Dey (Hon’Ble)

Section 14A

assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.291,92,11,551/-. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 12-08-2009 declaring total income of Rs.241,72,24,633/-. In course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer, while verifying the return

Mr. Shripad A. Shelar, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - Cir_34(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2023/MUM/2020[203-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

Court has expounded that their decision in that case will not impinge upon the powers of ITAT to admit grounds otherwise 3 than by revised return. Accordingly, I remit the issue to the AO consider the assesees claim and decide as per law. 7. As regards, the second ground

Ibrahim Moosa Peringady, Mumbai vs. ITO 21 (1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1534/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54

Limited (supra) had expounded that their decision in that case will not impinge upon the powers of ITAT to admit grounds otherwise than by revised return. Accordingly, I direct the AO to examine the assessees claim under section 54 of the I.T.Act and decide

Cenduit (India) Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 227/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)

never claimed deduction towards the amounts paid by it as "cess". She submits that neither was any such claim made by filing any revised return before the Assessing Officer. She therefore relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income ... deduction in respect of amounts paid by it towards "cess" in their original return of income nor did the Appellant - Assessee file any revised return of income, according to us, this was no bar to the Commissioner (Appeals) or the ITAT to consider and allow such deductions to the Appellant

M/S. Shree Hatkeshwara Cargo Movers, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1586/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Pune11 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1586 & 1587/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S. Shree Hatkeshwara Cargo Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Movers Pune Office No.8, Wonder City, Katraj By-Pass Road, Pune – 411046 Pan: Aatfs8504N Appellant Respondent

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

subjected to Survey action u/s 133A of the Act, wherein a sum of Rs.51,92,239 was offered towards inadmissible expenses. The assessee filed revised return declaring total income of Rs.1,04,88,260, thereby including the declared income. Accordingly, the assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 with

M/S. Shree Hatkeshwara Cargo Movers, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1587/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Pune11 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

The Dy. CIT., Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Vishal Fabrics Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1820/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Nahta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Agarwal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80I

High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd., 223 TAXMANN 234 it has filed a submission claiming deduction. It also revised return of income on 31.3.2015 in the assessment year ITA No. 805 and 2744/Ahd/2017 2013-14. Similarly, in the assessment year

M/S. Buro Happold Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (International Taxation) -1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 951/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Buro Happold Ltd Vs. Dcit (It) – 1(3)(2) C/O. Urmi Axis, 6Th 1810, 18Th Floor, Air Floor, Famous Studio India Bldg, Lane, Dr. Emoses Road, Narimanpoint,Mumbai- Mahalaxmi, Mumbai – 400 021. 400011. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb9239Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Anuj Kisnadwala. Ar Respondent By : Mr.Milind Chavan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) U/Sec144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Anuj Kisnadwala. ARFor Respondent: Mr.Milind Chavan, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 234B

offered to tax the income it has received as fees for consulting engineering services and fees for technical services. The assessee has filed the revised return of income on 29.09.2019 with a total income of Rs.Nil. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice ... planning, acoustic engineering and environmental engineering. The said amount was offered to tax in the original return of income and was not offered in revised return of income. Whereas in the last scrutiny assessment, the A.O found that for the A.Y 2014-15 and 2015-16, the assessee

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44ASection 54E

derives professional income— Assessee filed her return of income—This return was revised—Case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny—Assessing Officer accepted revised return and assessed total income—AO did not initiate penalty proceedings—Pr. CIT noted that order passed by AO is erroneous and prejudicial to interest ... Revenue—Assessee has revised return only when assessee was asked to reconcile mis-match between receipts shown in Income Tax return and 26AS—Pr. CIT directed Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (Order under Section 263 was passed—Held, issue is squarely covered in favour

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1875/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kiran

Section 143(3)Section 80

original return of income for AY 2007-08 on 31.10.2007 declaring an income of Rs. 47,27,22,240/-. The assessee later filed a revised return of income after claiming 80lA and declared income of Rs. 8,71,79,894/-. :- 5 -: ITA Nos.. 1872 to 1875/Hyd/2019 Madhucon Projects

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1874/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kiran

Section 143(3)Section 80

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1873/HYD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kiran

Section 143(3)Section 80

Madhucon Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1872/HYD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kiran

Section 143(3)Section 80

Asst CIT 1 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Janakalyn Sahakari Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result these appeals by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6840/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(yii)

filed on 29.09.2009 declaring total income at Nil after claiming the earlier year losses of Rs. 9,63,52,240/-. Subsequently, revised return was filed on 24.12.2014. The assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 31.3.2016 accepting the returned income. Subsequently an order u/s 263 was passed

ACIT, Circle - 16 (1), Mumbai vs. Bbc Worldwide Media Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 158/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dcit -16(1), Vs. M/S. Bbc World Wide Room No. 439, 4Th Media Pvt Ltd., Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 401, 4Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai – Construction House A, 400 020. Off Linking Road, 24Th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400052 Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb2307F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.C T Mathew. DRFor Respondent: Shri.Siddhesh Chougle. AR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 92C

total income of Rs.Nil after claiming set off of current year loss of Rs.2,32,01,367/-. Subsequently, the assessee has filed the revised return of income on 18.02.2014 with a revised total income (loss) of Rs.2,26,72,013/- and the return of income was processed

Kalyani Steels Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 14, Pune

The appeal of the assesse is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1403/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kalyani Steels Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mundhwa, Vs. Income-Tax Circle-14, Pune – 411 036 Aaykarsadan, Bodhi Tower, 548/2B, Salisbury Park, Gultekdi, Pune – 411 037. Pan No. Aaack7315D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Nikhil Pathak, A.RFor Respondent: Shri. M.G Jasnani, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

never claimed deduction towards the amounts paid by it as “cess”. She submits that neither was any such claim made by filing any revised return before the Assessing Officer. She therefore relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income ... deduction in respect of amounts paid by it towards “cess” in their original return of income nor did the Appellant – Assessee file any revised return of income, according to us, this was no bar to the Commissioner (Appeals) or the ITAT to consider and allow such deductions to the Appellant

Metal & Scraps Traders P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1322/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1322/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Metal & Scraps Traders Pvt. Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner Of C/O.V.Ravichandran, Income Tax, 49 (Old No.24), Sixth Main Road, Corporate Circle-4(1), R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 028. Chennai. [Pan: Aaccm 0313 K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mrs.R.Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

scrap, filed its return of income for the AY 2014-15 on 29.09.2014 admitting total income of Rs.1,67,09,080/- and subsequently filed revised return on 02.01.2015 declaring total income of Rs.1,69,41,310/-. The assessment for the impugned assessment year has been completed u/s.143