“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

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

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

ITA 1271/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

Nkb Infrastructure (P) Ltd, Rewari vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263

asset-wise detail of which is available on page 47 of the paper-book. 4 4.2 The Learned Counsel further submitted that in the revised return, rather than increase which could have become a cause of enquiry, there is a fall in claim of loss. He submitted that Learned PCIT ... made no specific finding as how the assessment order is erroneous insofar as the issue of claim of reduced loss in revised return. The learned Counsel further submitted that revised return has been filed validly in terms of section 139(5) of the Act and once valid revised return

DCIT(Central)-2, Indore vs. M/S Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt.Ltd, Indore

ITA 85/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2013-14 Dcit(Central)-2 M/S. Kalyan Toll Highway Pvt. Ltd. Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No. Aadck9401F Appellant By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Ajay Tulsiyan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M:

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

this project cost was claimed from A.Y. 2015-16 on- words which were subsequently revised by reducing the claim of depreciation by filing revised return of income. However, for A.Y. M/s. Kalyan toll Highways Pvt. Ltd. ITANo.85/Ind/2020 2013-14 no addition was made for alleged amount of Rs.1 ... project cost subject to depreciation which was claimed for A.Y. 2015-16 onwards. The excess depreciation claim was also withdrawn by filing revised returns. Since no addition was made for year under appeal, no penalty could have been levied. 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Krishnaiah Bollineni, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 192/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri D.V. Ajaneyulu ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anjala Sahu, DR

Section 143(3)Section 154

22/Hyd/18 Sri Krishnaiah Bollineni, Hyderabad 15 on 01.11.2014 admitting total income of Rs. 9,49,48,520/- and filed his revised return of income for AY 2014-15 on 28.10.2015 admitting total income of Rs. 1,47,15,080/-. During the assessment proceedings ... accepting income returned by assessee in original return of income i.e. Rs. 9,49,48,520/-. 3. Aggrieved by non-consideration of the revised return of income, the assessee filed an Application u/s 154 of the Act requesting the AO to consider the revised return of income in which

DCIT-11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sangam India Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed whereas the assessee‟s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1490/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit-11(1)(2) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Gf, Room No.1 306, „B‟ Wing बिाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dynasty Business Park Vs. Mumbai-400 020 J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Co No.01/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Sangam India Ltd. Dcit-11(1)(2) 306, „B‟Wing Gf, Room No.1 बिाम/ Dynasty Business Park Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. J.B. Nagar, A.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaccs-0486-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Shrivastava-Ld

Section 2(24)

Textiles, Government of India. 2.2 These subsidies were initially offered in the return of income but the same were claimed as deduction in revised return of income. The Ld. AO noted that there was an amendment by Finance Act, 2015 in the definition of income u/s 2(24) w.e.f. 01/04/2016

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3537/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit Vs. M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., Circle – 11(1), 34, Basant Lok, Vasant New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi Pan No. Aaach 0812 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Revenue By Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. Ms. Manisha Sharma, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 15/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 271(1)(c)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 40Section 80I

company who filed its return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 26.09.2008, declaring total income of Rs.1307,37,84,038/-. Thereafter, assessee filed revised return of income with increased claim of TDS on 05.03.2009. Thereafter, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C

Ideacount Education P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3191/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 3191/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 3192/Mum/2017 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2011-12) M/S Ideacount Education Pvt. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of 1 St 101/108, Floor, Shoppers Income Tax, Aayakar Point, S.V. Road, Andheri (West), Bhavan, M.K. Road, फनाभ/ Mumbai-400 058 Churchgate, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aabcf1631Q अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Shri Dr. K Shivram, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Lks Dehiya, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 23.07.2021

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K Shivram, ARFor Respondent: Shri LKS Dehiya, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 68

response to the same notice, the assessee vide letter dated 09.02.2015 requested the Assessing Officer to treat the revised return of income filed by the assessee as return in pursuant to this notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee also requested copy of reasons for reopening of assessment ... response to the said notice, there was no compliance. However, vide order representative’s letter dated 09.02.2015, you have requested to treat the revised return of income filed on 25.09.2010 as return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

ACIT-16(1), Mumbai vs. Shreyas Anil Talpade, Mumbai

ITA 2263/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shreyas Anil Talpade Acit 16(1), 6B, Godrej Waldorf, Vs. R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Swami Samartha, Aayakar Bhavan, Prasanna Chs, Opp. Maharshi Karve Marg, To Millat Nagar, Oshiwara, Churchgate, Andheri, Mumbai- 400 053 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)(a)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50Section 50C

have been calculated under Sec.50 of the I. T. Act.” 2. Briefly stated, the assessee who is a film actor had e-filed a revised return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 30.11.2014, declaring a total income of Rs.Nil after claiming current year loss of Rs.46

M/S Aanya Real Estate Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 15 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and direct that the penalty in this case be deleted

ITA 115/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Aanya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit 15(1)(1) R. No. 470, 4Th Floor, 120 A Wing 02, Commercial Building 23-24, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Minerva Industrial Estate, Aasha Nagar, Mumbai-400 020 Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080

For Appellant: Shri K. P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

dated 07/09/2015 9. The observation of Hon'ble CIT(A) at page 10 para 8 & 9 that during assessment proceedings assessee has filed a revised return disallowing interest and other expenses is factually incorrect The assessee has filed originai return declaring income at Rs.74,88,340/- under the normal provisions ... making addition of Rs.35,92,393/- to determine assessed income at Rs.1,10,80,730/- under normal provision. It is specifically asserted that no revised return is filed by assessed as observed by CIT(A) In appellate order. In fact no disallowance on account of interest and other expenses

Vinayak Mhatre, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 26, Mumbai

ITA 2561/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.2559 To 2562/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2011-12) M/S Vinayak Mhatre Pr. Cit-26 Flat No. B/10, Navsahjivan Chs Vs. 4Th Floor,C-10, Ltd, Shiv Srushti, Kurla (East), Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Mumbai 400 024 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kipgen,, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 44A

Rs.3,21,419/-, the A.O reopened his case u/s 147 of the Act. In the course of the assessment proceedings the assessee filed a revised return of income declaring a total income of Rs.11,18,400/-. On a perusal of the profit and loss account that was filed ... assessee alongwith his revised return of income, it was observed by the A.O that he had though credited the entire receipts of Rs.1,61,81,566/-, but thereafter claiming expenses under the various heads had reflected a minimal net profit of Rs.11,99,356/-. As the facts unfolded

Vinayak Mhatre, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 26, Mumbai

ITA 2560/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kipgen,, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 44A

Vinayak Mhatre, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 26, Mumbai

ITA 2559/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kipgen,, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 44A

M/S Radhishwari Devlopers P Ltd, Indore vs. Pr CIT -2 Indore, Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 493/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

impugned order u/s 263 of the Act is distinguishable, as the facts in this case are that the assessee had filed revised return claiming additional expenses. When the Ld. Assessing Officer enquired about these additional expenses the assessee withdrew this claim and the Ld. Assessing Officer accepted the same

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Sppl Property Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 22/KOL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 80Section 80ISection 80l

income for AY 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs.41,04,26,777/-. The AO noted that the assessee filed a revised return on 29.03.2016 declaring a total income of Rs.40,88,96,546/-. The AO took note of the fact that the assessee claimed deduction

Hdfc Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5672/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () M/S Hdfc Bank Limited Acit-2(3)(1) Hdfc Bank House Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Mishra, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(viia)

case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (supra) is confined to the powers of the Assessing Officer and accepting a claim without revised return. This is what the Supreme Court observed in the said judgment while distinguishing the judgment in the case of National Thermal Power

Shri Satish Mayekar, Mumbai vs. DCIT-28(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4787/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Accountantmember) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Satish Mayekar, Dcit-28(3), 404, Geetanjali, Ranade Road, Erstwhile Dcit-22(3), Dadar, Mumbai-400028. Navi Mumbai-400703. Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. SandipKejariwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Vijay Kumar Menon, DR

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

allowing the set off of F&O loss of Rs.22,88,642/- against business income stating that the Appellant had not furnished revised return of Income under section 139(5) of the Act, without Shri Satish Mayekar 2 considering the facts that the Appellant had filed revised computation of income ... during the course of scrutiny assessment since due date of filing revised return of income was over. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing carry forward of short term capital Loss of Rs.30,99,430/- to She subsequent

M/S. Sogefi Engine Systems India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Sogefi- Mnr Engine Systems India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2089/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Venkatesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(1)

assessee in its original return, which had been regarded as insufficient. Moreover, under section 139(5), the assessee was entitled to file the revised return rectifying the error committed in showing the expenditure. Moreover, the finding of the Tribunal that the expenditure incurred was revenue expenditure and/or for business purpose