← 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

Titian Laboratories P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3344/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 133ASection 35

form of non-genuine purchases was at ₹.4,19,42,439/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that assessee company has not filed any revised return of income for the relevant assessment year disclosing the additional income declared during the survey proceedings. In the course of the assessment proceedings assessee was required ... dated 25.02.2014 submitted copies of ledger of the parties with copies of invoices and claimed that the purchases were genuine. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 18.01.2013 offering ₹.15,55,062/- as income. Subsequently, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer disallowing the purchases

United Leasing & Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2763/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) United Leasing & Vs. Ito Industrial Ltd. Ward – 27(1) D-41, South Extension, New Delhi Part-Ii, New Delhi-49 Pan : Aaacu 0323 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Y. K. Sharma, C.A. Revenue By Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.10.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 14A

return of income and since assessee had not withdrawn the claim of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act by filing revised return, he was of the view that the claim of withdrawal of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act could not be entertained. He placed reliance on the decision ... time limit u/s 139(5) of the Act for revising the return of income expired on 31.03.2014 and therefore it could not file revised return of income before the AO. Before us, Learned AR also submitted that it is a settled law that the CIT(A) as well as Tribunal

Anjali Jewellers, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

153C cannot be interpreted to be a further innings for the AO and/or assessee beyond provisions of Sections 139 (return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that

ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata vs. M/S. Machinery Agencies India, Kolkata

ITA 2100/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 131Section 68Section 69C

noted by the Assessing Officer are that the assessee firm filed its original return of income of Rs. 22,78,400/- and filed revised return on 22.07.2015 showing total income of Rs. 22,78,400/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. In the course of assessment

M/S. the Sahebrao Deshmukh Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-49, Mumbai

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

ITA 1827/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. The Sahebrao Vs. Cit(A)-49 Deshmukh Co-Operative Room No. 605, 6Th Bank Ltd., Floor, Pratishta 103, Trade Corner Bhavan, Old Cgo Society, Sakinaka Annexe, Maharshi Junction, Andheri Karve Marg, Mumbai – (East), Mumbai – 400020. 400072. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabatt4669A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Satish Mody. Ar Respondent By : Shri. Sanjay Kashyap. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28.09.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Satish Mody. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kashyap. DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Order of C.I.T (A) 49 for disallowances of Claim of total loss of Rs.13,01,70,364/- on account of bad debts as per Revised Return of Income Tax Act, 1961. Date of the Order is 21st February 2020. This appeal normally should have been filed whether 60 days ... delay for filling appeal before Honourable I.T.A.T. 2. Allowance of Claim of Rs.13,01,70,364/- on account of bad debts as per Revised Return of Income executed on 01/09/2017 and submitted manually on 12/10/2017 On the facts of the case and in the circumstances

Shah Technical Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addll. CIT 2(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 338/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Shah Technical Addl. Cit-2(3)(2), Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 552, 407, Raheja Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. 214, Nariman Point, Vs. Maharshi Karve Marg, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcs4968D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivaram (Sr. Advocate) Revenue By : Shri T. Khalsa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2021

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram (Sr. Advocate)For Respondent: Shri T. Khalsa (DR)
Section 115J

Whereas, the assessee also declared book profit of Rs. 9,98,87,661/- under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, assessee also filed a revised return of income on 30.11.2016. Be that as it may, in course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer (AO) while verifying the profit and loss

Ronak Gems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 258/Mum/2018 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) M/S Ronak Gems Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Of 311, Mehta Bhavan, Shop No.5, Income Tax, Central Circle- Ground Floor Opera House, 2(4), Mumbai, 802, Old फनाभ/ Hinduja College Lane, Mumbai- Cgo Annex Building, M.K. 400 004 Road, Churchgate, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcr7550G अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Smt. Leena Srivastava, Cit Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2021

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 32(1)

being accounted for. All these were pointed out to the assessee. The assessee came forward with offer of additional income. Assessee filed a revised return on 31-3-1989 declaring a total income for this year at Rs. 3,74,226 as against the earlier amount ... been estimated by the search party in the office of the appellant and its sister concerns. On the basis of these calculations, revised returns were filed by the appellant for all the years under appeal. The income as per revised returns were also accepted in toto. In M/s Ronak Gems

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3779/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2021AY 2003-04
Section 143(3)

rural advances under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1026,23,30,375/-by way of note 18 to the revised return of income. The AO did not allow the claim of the assessee on the basis that deduction under section 36(1)(viia ... depreciation in each of the scrip, while ignoring any appreciation. The assessee has claimed a deduction on this account vide note 24 to the revised return of income. 63. We noted that revenue rejected the claim of the assessee following the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case

M/S. Odiyoor Sri Vividoddesha Souhardha Sahakari Niyamitha, Bantwal vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Mangaluru

In the result, appeal by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 880/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Odiyoor Sri Vividoddesha Souharda Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Sahakari Niyamitha, Ward – 2(4), Sri Gurudevadatta Samstanam, Mangaluru. Odiyoor, Bantwal – 574 243. Pan : Aaaao 2537 M Assessee By : Shri. Srinivasa Kamath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivasa Kamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 2(19)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) of Page 2 of 8 Rs.56,89,445/-. In a revised return of income filed, the assessee revised the said deduction to Rs.60,32,608/-. The assessee’s claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act was denied

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2247/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

assessee on mistaken belief should be deleted. 17.4 The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee is making fresh claim without filing revised return of income, which is contrary to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India ... Supreme Court has held in the case of Goetz India Ltd (supra) that the assessee can make fresh claim only through revised return of income, yet the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that its order will not impinge the power of the Tribunal to admit additional claim

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2246/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

assessee on mistaken belief should be deleted. 17.4 The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee is making fresh claim without filing revised return of income, which is contrary to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India ... Supreme Court has held in the case of Goetz India Ltd (supra) that the assessee can make fresh claim only through revised return of income, yet the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that its order will not impinge the power of the Tribunal to admit additional claim

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2245/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

assessee on mistaken belief should be deleted. 17.4 The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee is making fresh claim without filing revised return of income, which is contrary to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India ... Supreme Court has held in the case of Goetz India Ltd (supra) that the assessee can make fresh claim only through revised return of income, yet the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that its order will not impinge the power of the Tribunal to admit additional claim

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Bharat Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2244/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

assessee on mistaken belief should be deleted. 17.4 The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee is making fresh claim without filing revised return of income, which is contrary to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India ... Supreme Court has held in the case of Goetz India Ltd (supra) that the assessee can make fresh claim only through revised return of income, yet the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that its order will not impinge the power of the Tribunal to admit additional claim

M/S. Bhararth Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2049/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

assessee on mistaken belief should be deleted. 17.4 The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee is making fresh claim without filing revised return of income, which is contrary to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India ... Supreme Court has held in the case of Goetz India Ltd (supra) that the assessee can make fresh claim only through revised return of income, yet the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that its order will not impinge the power of the Tribunal to admit additional claim

M/S. Bharath Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2048/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

assessee on mistaken belief should be deleted. 17.4 The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee is making fresh claim without filing revised return of income, which is contrary to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India ... Supreme Court has held in the case of Goetz India Ltd (supra) that the assessee can make fresh claim only through revised return of income, yet the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that its order will not impinge the power of the Tribunal to admit additional claim

M/S. Bharath Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2047/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

assessee on mistaken belief should be deleted. 17.4 The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee is making fresh claim without filing revised return of income, which is contrary to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India ... Supreme Court has held in the case of Goetz India Ltd (supra) that the assessee can make fresh claim only through revised return of income, yet the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that its order will not impinge the power of the Tribunal to admit additional claim

M/S. Bharath Fritz Werner Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 11(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed and all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2046/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

assessee on mistaken belief should be deleted. 17.4 The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee is making fresh claim without filing revised return of income, which is contrary to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India ... Supreme Court has held in the case of Goetz India Ltd (supra) that the assessee can make fresh claim only through revised return of income, yet the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically held that its order will not impinge the power of the Tribunal to admit additional claim

ACIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3698/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 40

3697/DEL/2018 Revenue’s appeal 33. Return of income declaring total loss of Rs. 174,60,08,384/- was e- filed on 26.09.2014. Further the revised return was filed on 18.06.2015 declaring loss of Rs. 177,44,17,908/-. The Assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 29.12.2016 thereby making

ACIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3697/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 40

3697/DEL/2018 Revenue’s appeal 33. Return of income declaring total loss of Rs. 174,60,08,384/- was e- filed on 26.09.2014. Further the revised return was filed on 18.06.2015 declaring loss of Rs. 177,44,17,908/-. The Assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 29.12.2016 thereby making

National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3438/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

Section 145Section 14ASection 32Section 37(1)Section 40

3697/DEL/2018 Revenue’s appeal 33. Return of income declaring total loss of Rs. 174,60,08,384/- was e- filed on 26.09.2014. Further the revised return was filed on 18.06.2015 declaring loss of Rs. 177,44,17,908/-. The Assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 29.12.2016 thereby making