“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.

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.

Pr. CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd.

109 Taxmann.com 93 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has the power under Section 254 to entertain a claim for deduction not made in the original return of income or a revised return filed before the Assessing Officer.

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

Pvr Limited As Successor-in-Interst of Spi Cinema Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 2311/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri K.A.Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR

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

amounting to INR 2,46,609 as against an amount-of INR 1,68,843 claimed by the Assessee in its revised return dated 15 December 2016. 7. The learned CIT has erred in levying excess interest under section 234B amounting to INR 1,62,51,576 and interest

The DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

ITA 1766/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,10,44,39,360/- was filed on 20th Sep, 2008. Subsequently, the assessee has filed revised return of income on 19th Feb, 2009 declaring total income of Rs. 1,10,44,39,360/-. The case was subject to scrutiny assessment

Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, ITA Appeals 1766/Ahd/12, 2342/Ahd/15, 2343/Ahd/2015,

ITA 1757/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri T.P. Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Alcatel-Lucent India Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose and Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 9106/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 9106/Del/2019 (A.Y 2015-16) A/W Stay No. 319/Del/2020 (A.Y 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Vs Acit Alcatel-Lucent India Limited. Dlf Cyber Greens, 14Th & 15Th Circle-2(2), Floor, C. R. Building, Tower C, Phase Iii Dlf City, I. P. Estate Gurgaon, Haryana New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 234ASection 271Section 37(1)Section 40

technical support services. Return of income declaring total income at Rs. 31,49,17,630/- was filed electronically on 24/11/2015. The assessee company filed revised return of income on 31/3/2017 declaring income of Rs. 50,35,04,750/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee entered into international transactions with

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3920/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2008-09 Dcit Vs. Ritesh Properties & Industries Ltd. Circle – 15(1), 11/5B, First Floor, Pussa Road, C.R. Bldg., I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aaacr1437M (Applicant) (Respondent) & Cross Objection No. 329/Del/2011 (In Ita No. 3920/Del/2011) Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2

208/10-11 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVIII, New Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) directing the learned Assessing Officer to accept the revised return of income filed by the assessee under section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’); and to exclude an amount ... under normal provisions of the Act. Subsequently, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee revised its financial statements and e-filed revised return of income for the year under consideration on after excluding net profit of Rs.16.87 crore, both while computing income under normal provisions and also under section

Thimmareddy Krishnareddy, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2650/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Anand Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250Section 54BSection 54F

capital gain. The CIT(Appeals) rejected the claim of assessee on the reasoning that assessee has not filed the necessary Page 4 of 12 revised return before the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Regarding exemption u/s. 54F, we are of the opinion that the assessee ... regard to exemption u/s. 54B of the Act, we find that the reason for rejection by the CITA is that assessee has not filed revised return of income before the AO. The assessee relied on the order of Tribunal in the case of Rakesh Singh v. ACIT

M/S. Natural Remedies Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 704/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sri.S.Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Kannan Narayan, JCIT-DR

Section 35

return of income was filed on 17.10.2016 declaring total income of RS.23,15,69,790. Subsequently, the income was revised by filing a revised return of income on 29.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.22,85,89,280. In the return of income, the assessee-company had claimed research and development

Bg International Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, DDIT/ADIT(International Taxation), Circle-1, Dehradun

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 31/DDN/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Dec 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra,Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,42,10,598/-. Subsequently the assessee filed a revised return on 29.01.2018 on a total income of Rs. 4,42,10,598/-. During the course of assessment proceedings 2 Stay No. 14/DDN/2020 the AO noted that

DCIT Corporate Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Greenstar Fertilizers Ltd., Chennai

In the result , the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 34/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.34 & 35 /Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs M/S. Green Star Fertilizers Ltd, Income Tax, No.8, Spic House, Corporate Circle-2(1), Mount Road, Guindy, Room No.511, Wanaparthy Block Chennai-600 032. Chennai-600 034. Pan: Aadcg 9451D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. B.Ramakrishnan,FCA &

Section 37Section 37(1)Section 50B

wherein the claim of the assesse is not allowable even though the assesse had ample time to rectify the mistake by tiling a revised return as per the provisions of the Act. That the order of CIT(A) be vacated and that of the AO be restored. For these ... assessee regarding deduction for interest paid on forex loan on the ground that assessee has made fresh claim of expenditure without filing revised return and hence, the claim made by the assessee for deduction of interest expenditure cannot be allowed. While doing so, the Assessing Officer has relied upon

DCIT Corporate Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Greenstar Fertilizers Ltd., Chennai

In the result , the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 35/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. B.Ramakrishnan,FCA &

Section 37Section 37(1)Section 50B

M/S Buro Happold Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(It)-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 834/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Buro Happold Ltd., Vs. Dcit(It)-1(3)(2) Famous Studio Lane Mumbai Dr. E Moses Road Mahalaxmi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400001 Pan/Gir No.Aabcb9239Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 234B

assessee finally declared an income of Rs.120.58 Lacs on account of consulting and engineering services. The assessment was framed on the basis of latest revised return filed by the assessee on 31/03/2016. The assessee is stated to be an entity registered in UK and engaged in the business of providing

M/S. Ngc Network Asia, Llc, Mumbai vs. The ITO (It) 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1662/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2020AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S.Ngc Network Asia Llc Vs. Dy. Director Of Income Tax C/O. Dsk Legal (International Tax)– 3(2) 4Th Floor, Express Towers Scindia House Nariman Point Ballard Estate Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 038 Pan/Gir No.Aabcn3136G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S.Ngc Network Asia Llc Vs. Assistant Director Of C/O. Ngc Network(India) Income Tax (International Private Limited Tax)– 3(2) 1St Floor, Scindia House Star House, Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi Ballard Estate Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400001 Pan/Gir No.Aabcn3136G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S.Ngc Network Asia Llc Vs. The Income Tax Officer C/O. Ngc Network(India) (International Tax) 3(1) Private Limited Scindia House Star House, Dr. E. Moses Ballard Estate Road, Mahalaxmi Mumbai – 400001 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aabcn3136G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Ngc Network Asia Ltd., M/S.Ngc Network Asia Llc Vs. The Income Tax Officer C/O. Ngc Network(India) (International Tax) 3(1) Private Limited Scindia House Star House, Dr. E. Moses Ballard Estate Road, Mahalaxmi Mumbai – 400038 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aabcn3136G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S.Ngc Network Asia Llc Vs. The Income Tax Officer C/O. Ngc Network(India) (International Tax) 3(2) Private Limited Scindia House Star House, Dr. E. Moses Ballard Estate Road, Mahalaxmi Mumbai – 400038 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aabcn3136G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Porus Kaka Revenue By Shri Shreenivasaraghava Iyengar Date Of Hearing 18/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2020

Section 143(3)Section 147

said activities. Reliance was placed on Circular No. 23, dated 23/07/1969, M/s. NGC Network Asia Ltd., issued by the CBDT. While filing revised return on 05/03/2001,it computed its taxable income as per the formula prescribed in the Circular No. 742 without prejudice to its contention that

M/S Centum Electronics Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2194/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramsubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayan, D.R

Section 10BSection 40

Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in holding that the additional claim of the appellant is not allowable just because a revised return was not filed or the assessment order does not mention the facts of additional claim. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... rejected the grounds relating to the above said claims by stating that the assessee did not make these claims by filing revised return of income. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has put forth these claims before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings itself. He further submitted

Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3167/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kr. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

assessee for the year under consideration had filed original return of income on 30.09.2008 declaring total income at NIL. The assessee then filed revised return of income on 14.10.2008 declaring total income of Rs.13,12,461/-. The assessee company was incorporated on 12.11.2003 as a result of joint venture between

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3125/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kr. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

M/S. Becon Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5034/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conference) A.Y. : 2012-13

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 251(2)

oral submissions in this regard. The summary of these contentions is that:- i) That the assessee company has suo-moto, by filing a revised return of income, adding back the amount of purchases in its computation of Income filed for the Original return filed u/s 139(1), as well ... Revised return filed in response to notice u/s 153 A. This said fact was completely ignored by the Ld. AO while making assessment and making in ITA NO. 5034/DEL/2016 – AY – 2012-13 respect of bogus purchases. Thus, the purchases made during the year totaling

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6128/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kr. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5774/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Kr. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 144CSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4 vs. Headstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/77/2019HC Delhi24 Dec 2020

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)

subsidiary of Headstrong Services LLC, USA, had filed its return of income declaring income of Rs.30,64,480/- for the relevant assessment year. Thereafter, revised return of income was filed on 30thJanuary, 2009 that was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune vs. Runwal Multihousing Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1619/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Dcit, Circle 5, Vs. Runwal Multihousing Pvt. Ltd. Pune Runwal Plaza, 41/12, Karve Road, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aaacr8222Q Appellant Respondent

Section 80I

deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) amounting to Rs.15,79,33,405. Thereafter, a revised return was filed declaring total income of Rs.2,96,02,194. In the revised return, the assessee withdrew the claim of deduction u/s 80IB ... last ten years. He viewed the statistics from all the four projects undertaken by the assessee in the original return as well the revised return by tabulating details at pages 3 and 4 of the assessment order. On being called upon to explain as to why the method of accounting