← 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

Kanumuri Siva Rama Raju, Vijayawada vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 709/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीऱसं./I.T.A.No.704/Viz/2019 To 706/Viz/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12) Smt.Samanthapudi Lavanya Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-1033-1, Vijayawada Road Income Tax Hanuman Junction, Central Circle Bapulapadu Mandal Vijayawada Krishna Dist. [Pan : Cnbps7658N]

K.Krishna 6,17,860 2,30,710 7,10,260 Kumari 4.1 Subsequently, the assessees have filed the revised returns of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 on 30.03.2012 as per the details given below : Name of the appellant AY.2009-10 K.Subba Raju 1,42,270 K.Lakshmii Sirisha 80,260 S.Raja

Kanumuri Siva Rama Raju, Vijayawada vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 708/VIZ/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीऱसं./I.T.A.No.704/Viz/2019 To 706/Viz/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12) Smt.Samanthapudi Lavanya Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-1033-1, Vijayawada Road Income Tax Hanuman Junction, Central Circle Bapulapadu Mandal Vijayawada Krishna Dist. [Pan : Cnbps7658N]

K.Krishna 6,17,860 2,30,710 7,10,260 Kumari 4.1 Subsequently, the assessees have filed the revised returns of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 on 30.03.2012 as per the details given below : Name of the appellant AY.2009-10 K.Subba Raju 1,42,270 K.Lakshmii Sirisha 80,260 S.Raja

Kanumuri Siva Rama Raju, Vijayawada vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 707/VIZ/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीऱसं./I.T.A.No.704/Viz/2019 To 706/Viz/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12) Smt.Samanthapudi Lavanya Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-1033-1, Vijayawada Road Income Tax Hanuman Junction, Central Circle Bapulapadu Mandal Vijayawada Krishna Dist. [Pan : Cnbps7658N]

K.Krishna 6,17,860 2,30,710 7,10,260 Kumari 4.1 Subsequently, the assessees have filed the revised returns of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 on 30.03.2012 as per the details given below : Name of the appellant AY.2009-10 K.Subba Raju 1,42,270 K.Lakshmii Sirisha 80,260 S.Raja

Samanthapudi Lavanya, Vijayawada vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 705/VIZ/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीऱसं./I.T.A.No.704/Viz/2019 To 706/Viz/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12) Smt.Samanthapudi Lavanya Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-1033-1, Vijayawada Road Income Tax Hanuman Junction, Central Circle Bapulapadu Mandal Vijayawada Krishna Dist. [Pan : Cnbps7658N]

K.Krishna 6,17,860 2,30,710 7,10,260 Kumari 4.1 Subsequently, the assessees have filed the revised returns of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 on 30.03.2012 as per the details given below : Name of the appellant AY.2009-10 K.Subba Raju 1,42,270 K.Lakshmii Sirisha 80,260 S.Raja

Samanthapudi Lavanya, Vijayawada vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 704/VIZ/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीऱसं./I.T.A.No.704/Viz/2019 To 706/Viz/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10 To 2011-12) Smt.Samanthapudi Lavanya Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.5-1033-1, Vijayawada Road Income Tax Hanuman Junction, Central Circle Bapulapadu Mandal Vijayawada Krishna Dist. [Pan : Cnbps7658N]

K.Krishna 6,17,860 2,30,710 7,10,260 Kumari 4.1 Subsequently, the assessees have filed the revised returns of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 on 30.03.2012 as per the details given below : Name of the appellant AY.2009-10 K.Subba Raju 1,42,270 K.Lakshmii Sirisha 80,260 S.Raja

Ajaz Farooqi, Secunderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 786/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

Supreme Court of India in case of Lok Housing Construction Ltd in [2016] 70 taxmann.com 2 (SC) "Where assessee-company filed revised return claiming that income declared in original return in respect of sale of land/FSI stood withdrawn due to cancellation of sale agreements and High Court by impugned order ... case of Lok Housing Construction Ltd in [2016] 70 taxmann.com 2 (SC), wherein the Apex Court held as under: "Where assessee-company filed revised return claiming that income declared in original return in respect of sale of land/FSI stood withdrawn due to cancellation of sale agreements and High Court

Rajesh Pratap Ved, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 13 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1103/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2021AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)

declaring total income of Rs.12,84,79,720/-. The assessee is also a Director of Regal Hotel Pvt. Ltd., Further the assessee filed its revised return of income on 30/03/2017 declaring revised total income of Rs.11,67,24,470/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown income from

Building Design Partnership Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 7453/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 143(1)Section 154

whatever mistake was in the return of income filed by the assessee, which could be corrected by way of filing a revised return. (vii) As the period for filing revised return was already expired, the assessee preferred appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’), raising ... Assessing Officers were directed not to take advantage of assessee’s ignorance or mistake. The learned Counsel also submitted that time limit for filing revised return had already expired and therefore the assessee is unable to comply with the direction of the Learned CIT(A) for filing the revised return

Shri Jayvadan Ramniklal Kapadia, Surat vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 406/AHD/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Apr 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.406/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2003-04 Jyotiben Jayvadan Kapadia & V The Deputy Commissioner Of Rupesh Jayvadan Kapadia, S. Income, Circle-3, Surat. L/H Of Jayvadan Ramniklal Kapaida, A/2, Aamrakunj Society, Nr.Pujara Hospital, Ghod Dod Road, Surat. [Pan: Achpk 3121 D] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Shah – Ar राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 26.04.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Surat Hereinafter Referred As “Ld.Cit(A)” Dated 24.12.2014 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2003-04. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming Penalty On Gift Received From The Different Persons Of Rs.9,07,224/-. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Considered The Fact That All The Donors Having Pan No. & Given Gift Declaration Also To Prove Their Willingness & Genuineness. 3. The Ld. Dcit & Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Taken Into Consideration That The Assessee Has Voluntarily Offered Gift As Additional Income To Buy Peace Of Mind, Avoid Harassment & Avoid Further Litigation & Subject To Non Levy Of Penalty.

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

genuine but now, the donors are not cooperating with the assessee. Therefore, he is voluntarily declaring gifts as his additional income and filed revised return income including the amount of gifts as additional income and paying tax thereon. The explanation furnished by the assessee and the revised return ... accepted by the A.O. The AO held that the revised return of income is belated (time barred) and the explanation of assessee is not acceptable. The AO maintained addition of non-genuine gift in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section

Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle -1(3), Hyderabad vs. Narayana Reddy Vakati, Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 1226/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Smt. Nivedita Biswas (D.R.)For Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessee's contention that the amount admitted by assessee are now offered in the hands of company M/s VNR Infrastructure Lid., in the revised return filed on 26- 03-2016 is not tenable. During the search/post search proceedings, the additional income was offered in the hands of Shri Vakati Narayana

M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 359/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 250

filed its return of income on 29/09/2009 declaring total income of Rs.22,42,11,130/-. The return was revised twice and in the second revised return of income, the assessee disclosed total income of Rs.22,64,57,400/-. The Assessing Officer passed an order

Mikado Realtors (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Gurugram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & Shri LalitFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 153CSection 153C(1)Section 263

twice on 28.9.2018 and 16.10.2018 which was within the prescribed time limit for issue of notice u/s 143(2) with reference to the revised return filed on 18.9.2018 and return filed on 11.10.2018 in response to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act” is factually incorrect legally misconceived and contrary ... Acknowledgement of return of income dated 13.10.2017 ii) Computation of total income iii) Audited financial statement ii) 18.9.2018 That appellant had furnished a revised return of income declaring loss of Rs. 7,03,89,637/- for the financial year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year

Shailaja, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-69(5), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7558/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 7558/Del/2018 (A.Y 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Shailaja Vs Ito B-44, Vishrantika Apartments, Ward-69(5) Plot No. 5-A, Sector-3, Dwarka, Block-D, Pratyakash Kar New Delhi Bhawan, Civic Centre, Bcsps5048B Jln Marg, (Appellant) New Delhi (Respondent)

Section 139(5)Section 54F

remains that there was a sale of property which should have been declared by the assessee either in the original return or in the revised return and should have paid taxes accordingly or at the most should have offered to tax to the Revenue. Thus, the assessee has not done

Goodwill Management Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

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

ITA 670/BANG/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran“Smc” Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lumkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)

that the assessee has omitted to mention the details of exempt income in schedule EI. He also observed that the assessee did not file revised return of income, even though the discrepancy was informed by CPC to the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) declined to interfere with the intimation ... assessee has duly responded to the same, but it is the submission of revenue that the assessee should have filed a revised return of income. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the assessee is entitled for exemption of dividend income. The object of assessment

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K

The Chittoor Co-Operative Town Bank Limited, Chittoor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chittoor

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 659/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2015-16 The Chittoor Cooperative Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Town Bank Ltd., Chittoor. Ward – 2, Chittoor. Pan – Aaat3674J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 24/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

which was restricted to Rs. 1,59,93,405/-. When asked to show cause, the assessee filed revised return of income on 14/12/2017 and admitted an income of Rs. 1,57,23,600/- and the claim made at Rs. 2,76,24,259/- towards average advances made in rural branch ... assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 5. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee filed a paper book containing written submissions, revised return filed along with computation, original return of income filed along with computation, audited financial statements and perpetual debt instrument issued by Vasavi Coop Urbank Bank

Hero Motocrop Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 9187/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 145ASection 80ISection 92C

during the year on the ground that such expenses were not claimed Hero Motocorp Ltd. vs. ACIT in the original return of income or revised return of income permitted under section 139(5) of the Act. 20.1 That the assessing officer erred on facts and in law in not appreciating

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2114/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

section 133A of the Act where the statements of various persons representing the assessee were recorded to that effect. Besides, the copy of the revised return for the year under consideration was also discovered during the survey proceedings wherein the assessee has shown income chargeable to tax amounting ... that the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80 IB of the Act cannot be denied merely on the basis that a copy revised return was found during the survey proceedings wherein such claim was not made. Though the same was not filed with the department in this scenario

Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle-2(1) (2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1751/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. HemaniSr. Advocate withShriParimalSinhParmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT. D.R with Shri Lalit P. Jain. Sr. D.R
Section 115JSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

section 133A of the Act where the statements of various persons representing the assessee were recorded to that effect. Besides, the copy of the revised return for the year under consideration was also discovered during the survey proceedings wherein the assessee has shown income chargeable to tax amounting ... that the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 80 IB of the Act cannot be denied merely on the basis that a copy revised return was found during the survey proceedings wherein such claim was not made. Though the same was not filed with the department in this scenario