“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, Bangalore vs. M/S Core Objects India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed partly

ITA 517/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.517/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar

Section 10ASection 143Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(iv)

Ground No. 3 is in respect of not acknowledging voluntary adjustment of Rs.1,20,30,165/- offered by assessee as suo moto in the revised return filed. 29. The Ld.TPO proceeded to make adjustment of Rs.6,04,40,428/- considering the price received at Rs.37,01,58,923/-, ignoring ... correct price received of Rs,3821,89,088/- since the assessee has voluntarily offered Rs. 12030,165/- as additional income while' filing the revised return, and the same was brought to the notice of TPO vide submission dated 17.12.2013. Therefore the TP adjustment by the Assessing Officer/TPO should have been

M/S. Jabs International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT-5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5914/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Jabs Vs. Dcit – 5(2)(1) International Pvt Ltd., Room No. 571, 5T H 14-A, Gangotrai Bldg., Floor, Aayakar Banganga Talao, Bhavan, Mk Road, Malbar Hill, Mumbai – Mumbai – 400020. 400006. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj3768P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, SR DR

Section 10(34)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessee has filed the return of income electronically on 30.09.2015 declaring a total income of RS.30,99,52,100/- and also filed the revised return of income on 18.05.2017. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice

ITO, Ward-17(1), New Delhi vs. Momentum Technologies P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result ground number 1, 2 of the appeal are dismissed

ITA 5802/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. D.R

Section 68

income of ₹ 421,835/–. It is also revised its return of income on 12/2/2013 declaring taxable income of ₹ 1,014,894. Reasons behind revising return of income is stated to include 1% commission on accounted turnover in ICICI bank Ltd of app Rs 59303873/-. 03 In this case the information ... escaped assessment. It was also stated in the reasons recorded that without prejudice to the above, assessee has filed its revised return on 12/2/2013 declaring an income of ₹ 1,014,894/– whereas the proceedings u/s 143 (1) of the act has so far been completed at original return income

M/S. Growmore Research & Assets Management Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 504/MUM/2019[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1991-92 Dcit, M/S. Growmore Research Cent. Cir.-4(3) & Assets Management Central Range-4, Ltd., Room No.1921, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Vs. 19Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Air India Bldg., Dr. Annie Besant Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacg4936C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1991-92 M/S. Growmore Research Dcit & Assets Management Cent. Cir.-4(3), Ltd., Central Range-4, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1921, 3Rd Floor, Vs. 19Th Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Air India Bldg., Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Nariman Point, Pan: Aaacg4936C Mumbai - 400021

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R

Section 147Section 14ASection 234Section 69

Courts. In certain cases these notices were held to be invalid on the ground that where the Act allows the assessee time to file revised returns within a stipulated period under the Act, it was not open to the Assessing Officer to call upon the assessee to file the returns

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S.Growmore Research & Asset Management Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1196/MUM/2019[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 1991-92

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R

Section 147Section 14ASection 234Section 69

Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee for A

ITA 6730/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2021AY 2004-05

Section 10(33)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Supreme Court has accepted the jurisdiction of the ITAT in considering a ground not raised earlier even without filing revised return. Accordingly, the alternate ground as above stands allowed. 36. Since ground No. 6 is without prejudice to ground No. 5, the ground No. 6 is rejected. Apropos ground

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Emami Biotech Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2564/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 115J

year, would constitutes capital receipts in the hands of the appellant and should not be taxable. However, while filing original as well as revise return of income, by an inadvertent error, the above amount being capital receipt which was credited to P&L was not excluded from computation of total ... whereby an income not taxable is wrongly offered for tax, will not operate as any kind of estoppel against the assessee regardless whether the revised return was filed or not. In such a case the Revenue is obliged to assess the correct income. In support of the aforesaid claim

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Emami Biotech Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2563/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 115J

Celltick Mobile Media (India) P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The DCIT-9(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1673/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P. P. Bhatt & Hon’Ble Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1673/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan AgarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi

Section 143(2)Section 195Section 4Section 40

assessee filed its return on income for Assessment Year: 2014 – 15 on 26.11.2014 declaring total income of ₹ 3,63,50,740/–. The assessee filed revised return of income on 30.11.2015 declaring total income of ₹ 4,35,64,090/–. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly notices under section

M/S Hothur Traders, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 541/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Hothur Traders, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8, Of Income Tax, “Hothur House”, Infantry Road, Circle 1, Cantonment, Fort Road, Bellary – 583 104. Bellary – 583 102. Pan: Aaefh 7705H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, IRSFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)

profit of the assessee company. For denying exemption u/s. 10B on enhanced business profit, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee has not filed revised return for claiming deduction u/s. 10B of the Act, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India

DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi vs. Ifci Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5354/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 14A

carried forward business loss of Rs. 336,89,42,409/- and book profits of Rs. 469,18,16,779/- u/s 115JB. The assessee filed revised return of income on 28th March, 2013 showing the total income at Rs.52,28,02,154/- after set off against carried forward business loss

M/S. Daya Properties & Finance, Bhopal vs. ACIT (Central)-2, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 875/IND/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2017-18

Section 132Section 143(3)

offer Rs.37,02,020/- as additional income. Regular return of income was filed on 11.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,89,230/- thereafter, a revised return of income was filed on 29.09.2018 declaring total income of Rs.25,89,299/- after including Rs.22 lakhs towards surrender of income made during

Nagar Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 2555/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2555/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Nagar Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Post Box No.7, Central Bank Road, Ahmednagar-414001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaaan0509L बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Ahmednagar Circle, ……""यथ" / Respondent Ahmednagar. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.03.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.07.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. That The Learned Acit Ahmednagar Has Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances In Not Allowing Claims Made During The Course Of Hearing For Exempted Income Of Dividend Of Rs. 1487135/- & Expenses Debited To P & L A/C On Account Of Depreciation On Govt. Securities Rs. 11200000/- To Be Allowed As Exempted Income As Well As Allowable Expenses & The Same Were Also Dismissed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii Pune. 2. That Your Appellant Prays That He May Be Allowed To Add, To Alter Or Amend The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale

Section 41(1)

case, the ITAT, in law, was right in holding that the claim of deduction not made in the original returns and not supported by revised return, was admissible. The Revenue had relied upon Goetze (supra) and urged that the ITAT had no power to allow the claim for deduction. However

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bse Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5654/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

under normal provisions of the Act and book profit of Rs.196,10,30,550/- u/s.115 JB of the Act. Subsequently, assessee filed its revised return of income on 26/03/2013 declaring total income of Rs.156,61,38,798/- under normal provisions of the Act and Rs.191,41,30,593/- u/s.115JB

Vinay Kumar Mundra HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-side and the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5328/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 5328/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) Vinay Kumar Mundra Huf, 902, Rajendra Ratna, Mahesh Nagar, S.V.Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai 400 062. Pan:Aafhv2417R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 31(3)(5), Mumbai ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Akshay J. Shah Revenue By : Shri Sanjay J. Sethi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/03/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/03/2021 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Akshay J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

Section 143(3)

आअसं. 5328/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2015-16) impugned assessment year on 31/08/2015 declaring total income of Rs.18,48,070/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 30/03/2017 claiming loss of Rs.5,04,601/- which includes loss on account investment in National Spot Exchange amounting to Rs.31 ... assessee set off said loss made against speculation business profits. The Assessing Officer rejected assessee’s claim of loss made in the revised return on the ground that the loss pertains to earlier years and hence, cannot be allowed in the year under consideration. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated

Tata Communication, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2577/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 263

assessee company filed its return of income electronically on 29th September 2008, declaring total income of ` 216,72,38,850. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income electronically on 31st March 2010, declaring total income of ` 189,59,77,130. In the revised return of income, the assessee

Jogdhian Hari Bhagwan Rastogi Charitable Memorial Trust, New Delhi vs. ACIT (E) Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3696/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Thakur, Sr DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

made but was denied by the Assessing Officer stating that such claim was never made in the return of income nor by way of revised return of income. 4. When the matter was agitated before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A), drawing support from the decision ... orders of the authorities below. It is true that the claim was not made in the return of income. It is equally true that revised return of income was also not filed. In our considered view, a legal claim can be made at any stage and the decision

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ircon International Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2117/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147

normal provisions of the Act and Book Profits amounting to Rs. 252,248,183/- as per provisions of section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, revised Return of Income was filed by the assessee company on 30-03-2006 declaring the Total Income of Rs. 61,614,780/- under the normal

Sulzer Pumps India Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for AY 2012-13 is partly allowed

ITA 1153/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan, Shri S. SriramFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, Shri Sushil Kr

Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 92CSection 95D

purpose of revenue. The Ld. DR further explains that the language of section 143(2) has undergone sea change; by not filing revised return of income u/s. 139(5), the legally available right under procedure prescribed by law is forfeited i.e, time barred; the adoption of appeal route to claim

DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kec International Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6447/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 2

books profits u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs. 230,87,92,525/- and computed its tax liability thereon. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 30-03-2013 declaring total income under normal provisions at Rs. 113,00,88,168/- after claiming set off of brought ... they have already re-covered from that AE KEC Global Fee of Rs.155 lakhs. The said fees is also offered to tax in the revised return of income. Therefore, TP Adjustment for the year should be net of such recovery and net TP adjustment should be Rs.582 lakhs. However