“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

Kamalnayan Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation, New Delhi vs. ITO, Exemption Circle- 1(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7415/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234C

sale proceeds at gross level without any substantive reason. It is a fact on record that the assessee has applied for rectification and filed revised return thereby changing the head of this particular transaction from capital gain to income from other sources but the 4 amount and the actual

The Krishna District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Co-Operative Union Limited, Vijayawada vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

ITA 43/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT DR

Section 263

said interest receipt, the net interest income of Rs.97,88,434/- was claimed as deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) by the assessee in the revised return of income. The said deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) is applicable to the income derived by a cooperative society by way of Interest

The Krishna District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Co-Operative Union Limited, Vijayawada vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada

ITA 42/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, FCAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Sonawal, CIT DR

Section 263

Gujarat Insecticides Limited, Ankleshwar vs. The Addl.CIT., Bharuch Range, Bharuch

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2234/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Court Hearing) Gujarat Insecticides Ltd, Additional Commissioner Of Plot No. 805/806, Income Tax, Bharuch Range, Vs Gidc Industrial Estate, Bharuch. Ankleshwar-393002 (Gujarat). Pan : Aaacg 8436 D Appellant Respondent

Section 115Section 254(1)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)

book profit under section 115 JB at nil. The case was selected for a scrutiny. During the assessment the assessee filed revised return of income and claimed bad debts /business loss of ₹ 1.73 crore on account of the fact that over a period of last several years, the said amount ... year 2005-06 and remaining ₹ 15 lakhs were received in the current financial year that is 2006-07. The claim made by assessee in revised return of income was not accepted by assessing officer by taking view that the assessee never charged any interest from Nippon investment Private Limited

Sirhind Steels Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-4, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 713/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 713/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Sirhind Steel Ltd., P.C.I.T-4, 7Th Floor, Shalin Building, Vs. Ambawadi, Nr. Nehru Bridge Corner, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Vartik R. Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT.D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

STCG of Rs. 1,41,19,885/- and iii. LTCG of 97,295/- only. 4.1 Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income declaring total income of Rs. 63,27,320/- comprising of the following income: i. Business income of Rs. 52,18,327/- ii. STCG ... LTCG of Rs. 97295/- 4.2 The income declared by the assessee in the revised return of income was accepted in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated Asstt. Year 2014-15 3 02-11-2016 except for some adjustment in the book profit

Unique Estates Development Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4598/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleunique Estates Dcit, Cc-4(1) बनाम/ Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Development Co. Ltd., Vs. Construction House-B, 2Nd Air India Bldg. Nariman Floor, 623, Linking Road, Point, Mumbai – Khar (West), 400 021. Mumbai-400 052. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0699N .. (""यथ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Shah, ARFor Respondent: Usha Gaikwad , CIT-DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23

income for Assessment Year 2016-17 on 17.10.2016 with total income of Rs. 215,99,70,220/- and the assessee company also filed the revised return of income on 01.12.2017 and 11.12.2017 with the total income of Rs. 214,75,70,217/- The return of income was processed

Sumeet Mehra, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4276/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesumeet Mehra, Dcit 1(3)(1) बनाम/ 5-C, Prem Kutir, 177, Room No. 547, Aayakar Vs. Marine Drive Backbay Bhavan, M.K. Road, Reclamation, Mumbai – 400 007. Mumbai-400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agjpm7660D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Govind Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar , (CIT-DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

found that the claim cannot be accepted as the assessee cannot change and reduced income offered in the return of income without filing the Revised return of income and relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT and the assessed ... relied on the order of CIT(A) and has raised objections that the assessee ITA No. 4276 Mum 2019-Sumeet Mehra. without filing the revised return of income and explaining the detailed reasons cannot claim the relief. Further he explained that the appeal should not be admitted and dismissed

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

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3388/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

completed. However, assessment order in the instant case was passed on 27/3/1997 and another notice under Section 148 was issued on 24/11/1994 and a revised return was filed on 31/3/1995. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the second notice dated 24/11/94 is barred by limitation since ... that agricultural income is not included since the same was being worked out and was to be furnished at the time of filing a revised return. Though the said document is dated 24.10.1992, it has not been filed in the Income Tax Office. In the absence of there being

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

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3387/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

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

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3386/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

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

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3385/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

M/S Vvd Constructions Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, ITA No.3384/Bang/2018 is allowed, while ITA Nos

ITA 3384/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)

M/S Salesforce.Com India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

Accordingly these ground raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3286/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.3286/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Sumeet Khurana, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92D

under: 2. The assessee filed its return of income for year under consideration on 28/11/2014 declaring total income of Rs.11,31,24,620/-. Subsequently, revised return was filed on 30/03/2016 declaring total income of Rs.11,32,46,170/-. The return was processed under section

Aggarwal Multy Speciality Hospital Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 9062/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyasstt. Year 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 251Section 68

this appeal. 2. It could be seen from the records that assessee has filed return of income declaring loss of Rs. (-) 63,244/- and revised return on 11.5.2017 at loss of Rs. (-) 5,99,549/-. It is seen from revised return and also from the CASS reason that assesee

The Peerless Gen. Fin. & Inv. Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 892/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 50

income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 26.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.1,25,53,07,990/-. Subsequently a revised return was filed by the assessee on 04.03.2016 1 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Limited declaring the same total income

Bimla Devi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-50(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6991/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6991/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Bimla Devi, Vs Acit, 2/6, East Patel Nagar, Circle-50(1), New Delhi-110008 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abcpd3481D Assessee By : Sh. Y. P. Rawla, Ca Revenue By : Sh. V. K. Kataria, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Y. P. Rawla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V. K. Kataria, Sr. DR

Section 139(5)

Assessing Officer and Ld.CIT (A) has erred in rejecting the revised computation filled during the assessment proceedings. The additional claim in the revised return was interest paid on O. D. limit of bank utilized for business purpose. 3. The Assessing Officer and Ld.CIT (A) has erred in disallowing expenses which ... there is no justification of the disallowance. 4. The CIT Appeal has erred in dismissing the grounds of appeal regarding the rejection of revised return. 5. It is prayed that appellant may be allowed to add further grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. It is prayed that

Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -4, Pune

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

ITA 3029/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 3029/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Piaggio Vehicles Private Limited „Sky One‟, 9Th Floor, S. No.210, Final Plot No.72, Town Planning Scheme, Yerwada No.1, Kalyani Nagar, Pune-411 006. Pan : Aabcp1225G .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskhar Reddy

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

chargeable under head „profits and gains of business or profession‟. Though the claim for deduction was not raised in original return or by filing revised return, assessee had indeed addressed a letter claiming such deduction before assessment could be completed. However, even if Court proceed on basis that there

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Force Motors Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 1192/PUN/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1192/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Mahadevan A.M Krishnan

Section 43B

hence could not be accounted in the relevant accounting year. He also claimed that the return could not be revised by filing a revised return. The appellant claimed that as the bills pertaining to these claims have been submitted in the subsequent year, hence could not be accounted

ACIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2300/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit 1(3)(1) Vs. Reliance Money Rm No. 540, 5Th Floor, Infrastructure Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 7Th Floor, B Wing, Road, Mumbai. Trade World, Kamla Mills Compound, Sb Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2730G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bharat Andhale, Dr Respondent By : Shri Jitendra Sanghavi, Ar Date Of Hearing 28.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 18.03.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Mumbai, Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 263 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Andhale, DRFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi, AR

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 27Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

income on 29.09.2012 with total income of Rs. Nil and current year loss of Rs.11,93,01,363/-.The assessee company has filed the revised return of income on 29.03.2014 with higher claim of TDS. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3 of the Act on 24.03.2015 with assessed total

Lord Krishna Rice Mills, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Karnal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9009/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Lord Krishna Rice Mills, Vs Ito, C/O S.B. Gupta, Advocate, Ward-2, 3/93, Mall Road, Karnal. Karnal, Haryana. Pan : Aabfl5926H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mrs. Shivani Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27Th September, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Karnal, Relating To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Derives Income From Manufacturing & Trading Of Rice By Husking Of Paddy & Sales Thereof. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 25Th September, 2013 Declaring An Income Of Rs.3,41,830/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 15Th February, 2016 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.7,65,330/- Wherein He Made Certain Additions. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Has Claimed Additional Depreciation On Purchase Of Machinery Of Rs.1,17,14,501/-. The Claim Of The Assessee For Additional Depreciation Was Rejected By The Ao Keeping In View Of The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of M/S Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Cit Reported In 284 Itr 323, Since The Said Additional Depreciation Was Not Claimed By The Assessee Either In The Original Return Or Through The Revised Return.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 32(1)

reported in 284 ITR 323, since the said additional depreciation was not claimed by the assessee either in the original return or through the revised return. 3. Before the CIT(A), apart from challenging the other additions, the assessee challenged the order of the AO in denying the claim ... wherein it has been clearly stated that additional claim for deduction can be entertained only if a revised return has been filed. In this case, no revised return was filed. Moreover, the case law cited by the appellant focus attention to the proceedings at the level