“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

Shriram Epc Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 2425/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.2425/Chny/2019 Assessment Year: 2011 - 2012 Shriram Epc Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.18/03, Income Tax, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road, Vs. Company Circle – 6(1), 1St Floor, R.A. Building, Chennai – 600 034. Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. [Pan: Aafcs 1410C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate : प्रत्यथी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. S. Bharath, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.08.2021

For Respondent: Mr. S. Bharath, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

return of income filed by the Assessee was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 10.11.2012. The Assessee has filed a revised return of income on 31.03.2013 admitting an income of Rs.64,86,88,971/-. The return was taken up for scrutiny under CASS and a notice

M/S Rajdeep Marketing Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 3 (3)91), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 7969/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009–10 on 26.09.2009, declaring total income at ₹ 75,910/–. The assessee filed revised return of income on 26.09.2009, declaring total income at Rs.Nil, in order to claim deduction under section 80GGB of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ... revised return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the return of income was selected for scrutiny and original assessment proceedings were completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011 by the ITO, Ward–1(1), Solapur, assessing the total income

Mohd. Rafiq Mohd. Shakoor Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6128/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanhaFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 68

return of income declaring income of ` 1,90,000. But when the assessee realized the mistake, immediately after eight days the assessee had filed revised return of income on 9th 3 Mohd. Rafiz Mohd. Shakoor Shaikh October 2013. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the submissions ... Investments in Government and other securities – quoted ` 51,88,585 and Government and other Securities unquoted ` 79,74,312. ii) Subsequently assessee had filed revised return of income on 09.10.2013 declaring total income of ` 2,05,230 claiming S.A. tax of ` 600, showing Proprietor’s capital

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/S Dte Exports (P) Ltd

The Appeals are dismissed

ITTA/14/2021HC Andhra Pradesh01 Aug 2021

Bench: JOYMALYA BAGCHI,K SURESH REDDY

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 153DSection 69

declared during the course of search. Notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued upon the assessee. In response to such notice, revised return was filed admitting the income under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession”. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer

The Pr Commissioner of the Income Tax (Central) vs. M/S Deccan Tobacco Company

The Appeals are dismissed

ITTA/9/2021HC Andhra Pradesh01 Aug 2021

Bench: JOYMALYA BAGCHI,K SURESH REDDY

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 153DSection 69

Shri Rameshchandra R. Mehta, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(4), Now New Ward-3(2)(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/SRT/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Rameshchandra Income Tax Officer Rangildas Mehta, Ward-3(2) 3, Vs 82, Tribhovan Nagar Society, Aaykar Bhavan, Ved Road, Surat-394 004 Majura Gate, E-Mail: Kkirannco@Hmail.Com Surat-395001 Ph: 9825141413 Pan : Abjpm 8972 H Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 143Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

case are that the assessee filed his return of income for AY 2011-12 on 15.09.2011 declaring income of Rs.5,45,342/- and revised return on ITA 96/SRT/2019 (AY 2011-12) Rameshchandra Rangildas Mehta 30.03.2012 declaring income of Rs. 7,44,070/-. The assessment was completed under section

Vardhman Textiles Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, R-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1264/CHANDI/2019[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2002-03

For Appellant: S/Shri Subhash Aggarwal, Adv

Section 244A

belated claim during ITA Nos.1264 to 1267/Chd/2019 & ITA Nos.103 to 106/Chd/2020 A.Ys. 2002-03 to 2005-06 Page 22 of 28 assessment of filing revised return. According to the Revenue, this would entitle the assessee for claim of interest to the extent of delay. Provisions of sub-rule ... assessee had already been granted refund on processing of its return u/s 143(1) of the Act and subsequently it had filed a revised return claiming further refund. In this backdrop of facts the Hon’ble court held that the later refund could only relate back to the filing

M/S. Kiri Dyes and Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1849/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimal Sinh Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, C.I.T.D.R with Shri Raj Deep Singh, Sr.D.R

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 80I

under section 10B of the Act on the reasoning that it was registered as 100% EOU w.e.f. 1st November 2002. The assessee in the revised return of income declared an income of ₹ 29,18,932/- after claiming the exemption under section 10B of the Act. However, the Assessing officer ... claiming the deduction under section 10B of the Act. But the same was not filed. However, the certificate which was filed along with the revised return of income was pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05. ii. The approval for 100% EOU was granted in the middle of the year

M/S Nahar Industrial Enterprises Limited, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Circle-7, Ludhiana

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

ITA 262/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos. 262/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 20112-13 बनाम M/S Nahar Industrial The Acit, Enterprises, Focal Point, Circle-7, Aayakar Bhawan, Ludhiana. Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aaccn3563A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing Through Video Conferencing "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Navdeep Sharma, Adv. राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sh. Sandeep Dhaiya, Cit Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.05.2021 उदघोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2021 आदेश/Order Per R.L. Negi:

For Appellant: Shri Navdeep Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Dhaiya, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 8D

Budhewal Co-operative Society Ltd. (supra) also holds that a tax payer is very much entitled to raise an additional claim without filing a revised return. The Revenue’s pleadings nowhere indicate that there is any distinction on facts since the assessee’s identical additional depreciation claim stood allowed ... make amendment in the return of income at the assessment stage and the assessee can make a claim for depreciation by filing revised return. It was further contended that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) are contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Vardhman Textiles Ltd, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 103/CHANDI/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2021AY 2002-03

For Appellant: S/Shri Subhash Aggarwal, Adv

Section 244A

DCIT, Circle-6(1), Kolkata vs. Orient Paper & Industries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2110/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Dr. M. L. Meena]

held that since assessee has not filed its claim by filing a 3 M/s. Orient Paper & Industries Ltd., AY 2015-16 revised return of income the deduction cannot be allowed. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who was pleased to allow the claim by holding ... Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT in 284 ITR 323 (SC) [2006] was referred. Since the assessee has not filed its claim by filing a revised return of income, the claim submitted as above is not applicable. The AR of the appellant has also filed certificate showing amount of provision

Shri Bindiganavale Ravi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2959/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. R. Prathiba, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 2(47)(v)Section 234DSection 53A

acquisition has been restricted to Rs. 80,34,964/. The income from Capital Gains is recomputed at Rs.83,37,613/-. However in the revised return of income dated 23.09.2015, the assessee has declared a capital gain of Rs.41,08,845/- resulting in short computation of Rs.42,28,768/-. Hence

Dolphin Hotels Limited, R.R.Dist vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 540/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2009-10 Dolphin Hotels Limited, Vs. Acit, ‘Hotel Sitara’, Ramoji Film Circle-16(2), City, Hayathnagar Mandal, Hyderabad. Ranga Reddy District- 501512. Pan: Aaacd 7740 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri V. Siva Kumar Revenue By Sri D.J. Prabhakar Anand, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2021 Order

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

before the Assessing Officer but not accepted by him on the ground that the appel1ant itself made the addition and did not file any revised return withdrawing such addition. Hence, the appellant requested the Ld. CIT to direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance

The Tata Power Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1307/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

following dates and events in chronological order: 7 ITA 1307/Mum/2020 Date Event 01-10-2010 Original return filed by the assessee 30-03-2012 Revised return filed by the assessee 26-03-2014 Draft assessment order passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Tcp Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 3069/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mrs. S.Vidya, C.A ""For Respondent: 22.07.2021

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(ii)Section 40

chemicals and generation of power has filed its return of income for assessment year 2011-12 on 30.09.2011. The assessee has subsequently filed revised return on 28.08.2012 declaring total income of Rs.21,81,79,159/- under normal provisions of the Act, and book profit of Rs.29

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

Rs.77,71,82,153/-, which was claimed as expenditure in the original return of income and excluded from the sales revenue in the revised return of income contending that the same is diversion by overriding title. Hence, what was claimed/excluded in the returns of income and what was assessed ... Assessee claimed Rs.9,69,00,000/- as expenditure in the original return of income and excluded the same from Sales revenue in the revised return of income contending that the same is diversion by overriding title. 8.12.3. Ld.CIT.D.R placed his reliance on certain observations made by Hon'ble Supreme

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 37

Xerox India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessees is partly allowed

ITA 3618/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhusan Shukla, CIT, DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43BSection 92C

claims [which were claimed first time before the Ld. CIT(A)] on the ground that claims were not made by way of filing the revised return u/s 139(5)of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Those claims were – (i) Inadvertent disallowance taken in the return of income under the mistaken ... additional claims made for the first before the CIT(A) on the ground that the same were not made by way of filing revised return u/s 139(5) of the IT Act. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the export

Greenfield Realty Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 952/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.952 /Ahd/2019 Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Greenfield Realty P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.1(2) C/O. Kiran & Pradip Associates Vs Ahmedabad. 202, Rajkamal Plaza A-Navjivan Press Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaccg 8342 E आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1271 /Ahd/2019 Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Dcit, Cir.1(2) Greenfield Realty P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs C/O. Kiran & Pradip Associates 202, Rajkamal Plaza A-Navjivan Press Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaccg 8342 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Jwalin Nanavati, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Jwalin Nanavati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT-DR

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