← 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

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2293/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

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 Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Jt. CIT, Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3492/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

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

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Lamda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3470/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

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 Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2276/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

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

Siddhivinayak Co-Op. Ind. Premises Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 26(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4575/MUM/2019[F.Y. 2013-14 (1 Q - 26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 4575/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2013-14) Siddhivinayak Co-Operative Industrial Premises Society Limited, Bldg. No.8, Jogani Indstrial Complex, Plot No.1, Survey No.2, Chunabhatti, Mumbai 400 022 Pan: Aaajs 2579J ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(3)(2), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Priyesh S. KhiradFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J Sethi
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

fresh claim and had duly furnished the documents and submitted Form for claim under section 80-IB, there was no requirement for filing any revised return. In the present case, the assessee had reflected interest income in the Balance Sheet. Drawing analogy from the aforesaid decision, we hold that

Smt.Roma Harish Khatri, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 29(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 6706/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Smt. Roma Harish Khatri, The Income Tax Officer – 1407, Takshashila, Nirmal Vs. 29(3)(2), 307, 3Rd Floor, C-10, Nagar, Mulund (West), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Shah , A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

divested of his jurisdiction to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by way of filing of a revised return of income by the assessee. As such, we find no infirmity in the conduct of the A.O, who in our considered view had rightly declined to go by the revised

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Vijayawada vs. Sri Jasti Sridhar Babu, Kesarapalli

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 604/VIZ/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Apr 2021AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT DR
Section 10(1)Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 3Section 54BSection 54F

Apex Court, it is clear that the Assessee cannot be allowed to make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. 6.2 On the contrary, ld. AR submitted that the decision qua admission of additional ground/new claim is not only based upon the legal positions settled ... Meaning thereby, as per the Apex Court, the Assessee cannot make a claim before assessing officer for deduction other than filing of revised return, however the appellate authorities are not restricted to do so in entertaining the fresh claim for deduction even without revising the return of income

Sukhbir Singh Sahni, Mumbai vs. CIT-16, Mumbai

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

ITA 1871/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1871/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sukhbir Singh Sahni बिधम/ Cit-16 101, Mangal Bhandar, 13Th Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Road, Tps-Iii, Khar, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps4701K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Kavita Hehendale (Ar) Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2020 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015- 16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Hehendale (AR)For Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(b)Section 24Section 263

lift operations, garden upkeep and other such common area maintenance. Hence, the expenses for the same is reduced from the Gross Rent in the revised return. 4. I have relied upon various judicial decisions where this issue was examined by ITAT and the High Court, and it was held that

Bachhraj Factories Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 3986/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 14A

never claimed deduction towards the amounts paid by it as "cess". She submits that neither was any such claim made by filing any revised return before the Assessing Officer. She therefore relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323/157 taxman ... deduction in respect of amounts paid by it towards "cess" in their original return of income nor did the Appellant - Assessee file any revised return of income, according to us, this was no bar to the Commissioner (Appeals) or the ITAT to consider and allow such deductions to the Appellant

International Tractors Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu) & Anr

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/35/2019HC Delhi07 Apr 2021
Section 250(4)Section 80J

Section 80JJA of the Act and qua prior period expenses, in the original return. (ii). The assessee did not move the AO with a revised return for claiming deductions under Section 80JJAA of the Act and for prior period expenses. (iii) The assessee for the first time made these claims ... 35/2019 Page 6 of 13 claims on the ground that they did not either form part of the original return or the revised return. In support of his approach, the AO has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Goetze (India

ITO-13(2)(4), Mumbia, Mumbai vs. Stripco Springs Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6340/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodito- 13(2)(4), Room No. 146B, M/S Stripco Springs Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K 7/8, Neelkamal, Roshan Nagar, Vs. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 092. Pan – Aaacs7984A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Kumar, D.RFor Respondent: Shri. Snehal Shah & Ms. Bijal, A.Rs
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

components had e-filed its return of income for A.Y 2011-12 on 30.09.2011, declaring a total income of Rs. 88,422/-. Subsequently, a revised return of income was filed on 14.01.2012 declaring Nil income. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened under Sec. 147 of the Act. Observing

Shimpoli Laxmi Krupa Chs Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(3) (4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6339/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Shimpoli Laxmi Krupa Chs Ito, 32(3)(4), Room No. 115, Aykar Ltd.,A/201, Shimpoli Laxmi Bhavan, M.K Road, Krupa, Chikoo Wadi, Shimpoli, Mumbai – 400 020. Vs. Borivali West, Mumbai – 400 092. Pan – Aadas3812J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri. Vijay Kumar Menon, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

that no such fresh claim of the assessee could be entertained except for in a case where the same was raised by filing a revised return of income. Backed by his aforesaid conviction the A.O assessed the income of the assessee society at Rs. 1,15,440/-. The A.O while

Vinod Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 2526/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Chand YadavFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

that 14 ITA.No.2526/Del./2017 Shri Vinod Kumar, New Delhi. he has already filed his return of income on 16.10.2012. Thereafter, assessee has filed revised return on 29.11.2013 declaring income of Rs.4,62,24,040/-. In pursuance to such revised return notice u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued

M/S. Srf Limited, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2064/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 37Section 9C

refused to consider the additional claim on CER on the groundthat assessee has not made such claim before the assessing officer by filing a revised return. The CIT(A)relied on theHon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in case of Goetze India Ltd [284 ITR 323]. 28. The assessee ... entertain any claim for allowing deduction resulting in a reduction of total income returned, which is not claimed in the original return or a revised return. To this reasoning of the DRP, we are of the view that we have considered this aspect while dealing with the issue regarded enhancement

Modison Metals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle - 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3666/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

A.Y.2015-16 and book profit in sum of Rs.6,69,07,163/- u/s 115JB of the Income tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, the assessee filed the revised return of income on 29.03.2016. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued

M/S Vectra Advanced Engineering Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 127/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 57

land on which the factory building constructed was taken on lease from Government of India for a period of 99 years. In the revised return of income, the assessee had offered to tax income from letting out of factory building under the head `income from house property’. The rental income

Vectra Advanced Engineering Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1328/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 57

land on which the factory building constructed was taken on lease from Government of India for a period of 99 years. In the revised return of income, the assessee had offered to tax income from letting out of factory building under the head `income from house property’. The rental income

Vectra Advanced Engineering Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1327/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 57

land on which the factory building constructed was taken on lease from Government of India for a period of 99 years. In the revised return of income, the assessee had offered to tax income from letting out of factory building under the head `income from house property’. The rental income

Vectra Advanced Engineering Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1326/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 57

land on which the factory building constructed was taken on lease from Government of India for a period of 99 years. In the revised return of income, the assessee had offered to tax income from letting out of factory building under the head `income from house property’. The rental income

M/S Vectra Advanced Engineering Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1325/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Shailesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayanan, JCIT-DR
Section 144Section 22Section 24Section 57

land on which the factory building constructed was taken on lease from Government of India for a period of 99 years. In the revised return of income, the assessee had offered to tax income from letting out of factory building under the head `income from house property’. The rental income