← 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

Harish N Salve, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 61(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7356/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 90

Assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 93,05,67,910/-. Thereafter assessee filed revised return of income on 31.03.2017 revising the total income of Rs.93,40,35,870/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed

M/S. Nalco Mines Employees Union, Koraput vs. Pr.CIT-1, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off with the directions to the competent authority –ld

ITA 26/CTK/2021[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Years: 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Pramod Kumar Moharana, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Bhubaneswar.Of Nalco Mines Employees‟ Union, At: D-9, Sector-1, Nalco Township, Damanjodi,Dist: Koraput Pan/Gir No.Aclpm 0589 M (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Basudev Panda, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27 /10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order U/S.119(2)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Of The Pr. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2017-18. Application Of Applicant/Assessee For Condonation Of Delay :- 2. Ld. Senior Counsel On Application Dated 28.03.2021 Submitted That The Hon‟Ble High Court Of Orissa Was Pleased To Direct To File Appeal Before The Tribunal For Adjudication & The Matter Was Disposed Of Vide W.P.(C) No.24445/2020, Dated 05.01.2021 & I.A.No.250/2021 Vide Dated 17.03.2021 For Consideration Of Explanation Of Assessee For The Delay In P A G E 1 | 20 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Basudev Panda, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 119(2)(b)

seeking refunds by Appellant in the matter. Therefore the illegality committed has to be decided in favour of the Appellant. E. For that the revised returns filed on the basis of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court by the Assessee Employees about 130 persons from ... Appellant in the matter. Therefore the illegality committed has to be decided in favour of the assessee. The ld.Senior Counsel also submitted that the revised returns filed on the basis of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court by the Assessee Employees about 130 persons from

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/S Vaibhav Global Limited

ITA/53/2021HC Rajasthan15 Dec 2021

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,UMA SHANKER VYAS

Sajeevi Karuppuswamy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2014-15 Sanjeevi Karuppuswamy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-8(1), Pan: Amcpk 3612 J Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri M.V. Anil Kumar Revenue By Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2021 Order

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

original return of income. Subsequently, when the return was taken up for scrutiny the assessee filed a revised return admitting his turnover at Rs. 94,95,484/- and offered income U/s. 44AD of the Act @ 8% which works out to Rs. 7,59,639/- . (ii) The Ld. AO had accepted ... revised return filed by the assessee without further making any enquiry on the business of the assessee. 6. For the above stated reasons, the Ld. Pr. CIT invoked his powers U/s. 263 of the Act and directed the Ld. AO to redo the assessment after making proper enquiries

Jt. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3764/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

DCIT- CC- 1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2873/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

DCIT -CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2872/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

DCIT - CC - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2871/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2462/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2461/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 1413/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1412/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -I Kolkata vs. M/S Gkw Ltd

ITAT/161/2018HC Calcutta13 Dec 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Supratim Bhattacharya Date : September 22, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Adv. Ms. Sayani Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Swaralipi Sarkar, Adv. …For Appellant Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …For Respondent The Court :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5.1.2018 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A” Bench, Kolkata In Miscellaneous Application No. 205/Kol/2017 Affirming The Order Dated 27Th September, 2017 Passed In Income Tax Appeal No. 1176/Kol/2017 By Which The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –22 Kolkata, [Cit(A)] Dated 15Th March, 2017 Was Affirmed, Which Order Of The [Cit(A)] Arose Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Namely Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle – 2 (1), Kolkata Dated 28Th January, 2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Appeal Was Admitted On 3Rd December, 2018 To Decide The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I. Whether The Subject Income Could Be Taken To Have Accrued In India Only For The Reason That It Was Shown In The Balance Sheet Of The Assessee ?

Section 10(6)(viii)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 260A

rectified. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeal before the [CIT(A)] contending that the assessing officer has erred in ignoring the revised return filed by the assessee on 15th July, 2014 which was duly acknowledged where the income earned by the assessee under the head ‘salary claimed ... Further, it was contended that the assessing officer has overlooked the response sheet wherein acknowledgement has been given for filing the revised return. The said appeal was dismissed by the order dated 15th March, 2017 and on perusal of the said order it shows that the [CIT(A)] devoted much

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6620/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Srf Limited Vs. Acit The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Circle – 1, Vihar, Unit No.236 & 237, Ltu 2Nd Floor, Mayur Place, New Delhi Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110 091 Pan : Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Thereafter, assessee revised its total income to Rs.35,14,66,440/- and book profit of Rs.261,11,26,258/- by filing revised return of income on 31.03.2016. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee

Principal Comm of Income Tax, Kolkata 8 vs. M/S Price Water House

The appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law

ITAT/229/2017HC Calcutta10 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 143Section 260ASection 263Section 37Section 40

respondent/assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 declaring a total income of 3 Rs.35,20,57,152/-. Subsequently, revised return was filed declaring a total income of Rs.35,95,93,663/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was completed under Section

Dhanesh Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-50(1), New Delhi

ITA 4657/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. G. S. Pannu & Sh. Ravish Sood(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dhanesh Kumar Jain Acit C-89, Shakti Nagar Vs Circle – 50 (1) Extension, New Delhi New Delhi Pan No. Aahpj55020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 57

Dhanesh Kumar Jain Vs. ACIT, Circle-50(1), New Delhi 1 ITA No. 4657/Del/2018 – A.Y 2012-13 IN THE INCOME

Dr. Harsha N. Billangady, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1298/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 54F

income under Section 139(4) of the Act on 18.03.2009 declaring a total income of Rs.46,58,720/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed the revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act on 23.11.2009. It is the case of the assessee that considering the revised return of the assessee, notice ... assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2008-09 belatedly on 18/3/2009 u/s 139(4) of the Act. Thereafter, he filed a revised return of income u/s 139(5) on 23/11/2009. The ld.AR submitted that, as per the provisions then exiting, a revised return Page

Faber Castell Aktiengesellschaft, Germany vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7619/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shashi Kajle, Sr. DR

waiver agreement with Faber Castell India which has been put on record. The assessee also pleaded the permission of the undersigned to file a revised return. The submission of the assessee are rejected on merits as there is no provision under the Income Tax Act that allows it to file ... fresh claim before the Assessing Officer, if it has not done so by filing a revised return of income within statutory time limit. Further reliance is place on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Cout in Goetze [India] Ltd Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323.” 10. The Assessing Officer finally

DCIT, CC - I (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 378/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.378/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Balaji Hotels & Enterprises Income Tax, Limited, No.17/1, Bazullah Road, Corporate Circle – 1 (2), T. Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaacb 1445 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. Palanikumar, Cit Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021

For Appellant: Shri S. Palanikumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

sale of property at ₹.173,59,69,695/- as against ₹.105,99,78,952/- originally returned. Since the assessee has not filed any revised return of income, instead, only filed revised computation of income, the Assessing Officer rejected the revised computation :- 3 -: ITA No.378/Chny/20 of income. The Assessing Officer

DCIT, Circle3-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jubilant Foodworks Ltd., Noida

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed and Cross Objections of assessee are allowed

ITA 612/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kul Bharat(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 92A

further observed that though the claim of deduction of education cess and higher and secondary education cess was not raised in the original or revised return but when it is claimed before the appellate authorities, the appellate authorities is bound to consider such claim. 32. Before us, Revenue