“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

S. Subathra Iyengar, Trichy vs. ITO, Ward - III (1), Trichy

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 140/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 140/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. S. Subatra Iyengar, The Income Tax Officer, No. 46, Officers Colony, Vs. Ward Iii(1), Ranganathapuram, Puthur, Trichy. Trichy 620 017. [Pan:Aakpi4738H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Trichy, Dated 02.07.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11. Besides Challenging The Confirmation Of Addition In The Grounds Of Appeal, The Assessee Has Also Challenged The Ex-Parte Appellate Order.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT

Section 147Section 148Section 50C

return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 on 06.09.2011 admitting capital gains of ₹.47,032/-. Subsequently, the assessee has filed a revised return of income on 29.09.2011 admitting capital gains of ₹.1,01,178/-. The assessee had sold three plots admeasuring 18,459 sq.ft. vide documents

Soundarya Decorators Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Company Ward-6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3455/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3455/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Soundarya Decorators Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, Plot 26, Survey No. 2 & 3, Vs. Company Ward 6(2), Porur Village, Keezhakottiyur, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 048. [Pan:Aafcs8646C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.S. Jayakumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai, Dated 13.12.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Challenging The Confirmation Of Addition Of ₹.7,81,450/- Under The Head Capital Expenditure Referable To Impairment Of Assets.

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

that the assessee has filed the return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 30.09.2015 admitting NIL income. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income admitting 2 I.T.A. No. 3455/Chny/19 NIL income after setting off earlier loses. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny

Majesco Software and Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addi.Commi.of Income Tax(Drp-3), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 614/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 92D

learned AO and the learned TPO erred in determining the total income of the Appellant at INR 54,11,52,600 as against the revised returned income of INR 2,26,05,600 consequent to a Transfer pricing adjustment/addition of Rs. 51,35,47,000 and the said adjustment/addition being

DCIT 12 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S India First Life Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6725/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M.Balaganeshआअसं. 6725/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2016-17) Dcit-12(2)(2), Room No. 128F, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant Mumbai-400020 बनाम Vs. M/S India First Life Insurance Co. Ltd. B-301, Tril It 4, Filmcity Road, Malad (East), Mumbai-400097. Pan: Aadcb6215G ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Sh. R.K. Sahu ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Farookh V. Irani सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/08/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30.08.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2 Ita No. 6725 Mum 2019 (A.Y. 2016-17)

For Appellant: Sh. R.K. SahuFor Respondent: Shri Farookh V. Irani

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 44

case and the appellant’s submissions. Perusal of the assessment order shows that the AO has mentioned therein that the appellant had filed revised return of income on 02.08.2014. The appellant had also submitted copy of the same wherein claim u/s 10(23AAB) was made. The AO was, therefore ... correct in stating that the appellant had made the claim u/s 10(23AAB) by filing revised computation of income only without filing revised return of income. I find that the issue of whether income/loss from pension fund scheme should be excluded from the computation of income as provided under section

Times Infotainment Media Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeal are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 7523/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)

total income of the Appellant at Rs. 44,01,17,420/- as against loss of Rs. 34,41,181/- as reported in the revised Return of Income filed by the Appellant. Transfer pricing adjustment on the funds provided to TIML Global Limited (hereinafter referred as 'AE') 2. erred in computing ... years: 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 23 of 23 that such a plea could only be raised by way of a revised return. Learned representatives fairly agree that the issue in covered in favour of the assessee inasmuch as the Tribunal undisputedly has the powers to admit

Smt. Urmila Garg, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sangrur

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 1183/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24Section 96

rectified computation were as under: Sr. No. Particulars Original ITR & Computation Rectified Computation 1. Assessment Year 2015-16 2015-16 2. ITR Original No Revised Return filed by the assessee. 3. Income from House Properly Rs. 1,77,870/- Rs. 1,77,870/- 4. Income from Capital gain STCG

Shri Satish Kumar, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sangrur

In the result, appeal of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 1182/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 24Section 96

Hemendra Mathradas Kothari, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 599/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Gurubinder Singh

assessee’s revised computation on the ground that the claim has not been made either in the return of income or in the revised return of income, hence, the claim cannot be accepted. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment order dated 29.06.2016 before the CIT(A). In First Appellate ... Goetze India (supra) has held that the AO can only entertain assessee’s claim either in return of income or by way of revised return of income. The AO has no jurisdiction to entertain fresh claim made in assessment proceedings by way of revised computation. 4. Both sides heard, orders

V.V.Trust, New Delhi vs. ITO, Exemption, Ward-2(3), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3687/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Govind Singhal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

over-sight rent receipt of the last month could not be included in the return of income. Assessing Officer held that the revised return is not acceptable as it was found after detection of the error by selecting the case of the assessee for scrutiny on this reason. The Assessing ... return of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny only to examine substantial increase in the rental income of the assessee and, therefore, revised return was after detection and he held that assessee has deliberately concealed its income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. He levied a penalty

Smt. Jyoti Jain, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh

The appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 1075/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Smt. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1074/Chd/2019 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Lalit Jain The Assistant Commissioner बनाम S.C.O. 371-372, 2Nd Floor, Of Income Tax Circle-4(1), Sector-35B, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायीलेखासं./Pan No : Aaupj 0091Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Term Capital Gains allegedly being bogus were unearthed ,the assessee surrendered the Long Term Capital Gains as its income by way of filing a revised return declaring an amount of Rs.71,91,150/- in the case of Shri. Lalit Jain and 56,58,000/- in the case of Smt. Jyoti ... Jain. That the revised return filed by the assessee was assessed as ITA Nos. 1074&1075/Chd/2019 Lalit Jain & Jyoti Jain v. ACIT, Chandigarh 3 such in both cases and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. That against the assessment order so framed, the assessee filed appeal before

Sh. Lalit Jain, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh

The appeals of the assessees are allowed for

ITA 1074/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Mirah Dekor Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6600/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Ms. Mamta Bansal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 249(4)

same, letter dated 21.08.2019 was issued to the A.O. for clarification regarding the payment of tax on returned income and to verify whether revised return has been 4 Mirah Dekor Pvt. Ltd. filed in this case or not. As per A.Os reply it is seen that, payment ... been made fully on returned income also no revised return has been filed for this A.Y. Thus it is clear that tax due on Returned Income is not fully paid. 4.2 As per section 249(4) “No appeal under this chapter shall be admitted unless at the time of filing

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. India Infrasturcture Finance Company Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2066/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Ita Nos. 2065 & 2066/Del/2018 (Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2014-15) Acit Vs. M/S India Infrastructure Special Range – 4, Finance Company Ltd., New Delhi 8Th Floor, Hindustan Times Building, 18 & 20 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, Pan No. Aaach 0632 A New Delhi - 110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Atul Ninawat, Adv. Revenue By Shri Sharwan Kumar Gautam, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2021

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 12.03.2014 accepting the returned income in the revised return. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.04.2015 and consequently assessment was framed u/s 147/143

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. India Infrasturcture Finance Company Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2065/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(viia)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ngenox Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5099/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2006-07

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 154Section 2

legally justified in holding that the return filed in response t notice u/s I53A of the Income Tax Act 1961 (the Act) is actually ‘revised return’ u/s 139 (5) of the Act? 2. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is legally

M/S. Hindustan Minment Inc., Jamnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Jamnagar

In the result, appeal filed by Assessee is allowed

ITA 277/RJT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh) [Through Virtual Court]

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rathi, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 140ASection 154Section 194JSection 44A

alleged ground that the appellant has neither claimed any credit in TDS of Rs.12,40,875/-in return of income nor filed revised return income by claiming credit of TDS. The rejection of rectification application is totally unjustified and against the law and therefore the mistake apparent from record ... there is no mistake apparent from record as the appellant has neither claimed arty credit of TDS in return of income nor filed any revised returned income by claiming credit of TDS. 6. The appellant had carried out Factory Operations and management of M/s Aditya Coke Pvt. Ltd. The appellant

Dy CIT CC 4 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S Kanakia Spaces Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 323/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle – 4(1), Vs. 10Th Floor, 215 Atrium, Andheri Room No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 059 Mumbai – 400 021 Pan No. Aaack2629J (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R Revenue By : Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/08/2021

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

under: “The return of income was e-filed on 28.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.8,34,40,265/-. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 17.08.2013 declaring total income at Rs.8,71,49,682/-. Subsequently, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued

ACIT Circle- 16 (1), Mumbai vs. M/S Tata Sky Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7451/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.MistriFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 194HSection 36Section 40

Court has held that their decision in the said case would not impinge upon the powers of ITAT to admit grounds other than by revised return. This is more so in this case when the same issue was decided by ITAT in earlier years in assessee’s favour. Accordingly

Tata Sky Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Range 16 (1), Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7337/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D.MistriFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 194HSection 36Section 40

M/S. Narayana Hrudayalaya Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeals filed by revenue stands partly allowed and appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1679/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15

For Appellant: Shri V Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT

Section 35Section 35ASection 43B

which was disallowed by the Ld.AO for the reason that, the said claim was not made by assessee by way of a revised return. The Ld.CIT(A) upheld this observation of the Ld.AO. Page 6 of 17 ITA No.1679, 1684 & 1685/Bang/2019 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT ... section 35AD of the act. 9.1 Authorities below rejected the claim of assessee as it was not made before the Ld.AO by way of revised return. 9.2 We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides and record placed before us. 9.3 Similar issue was considered by Hon’ble Supreme