← 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.

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.

Pr. CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd.
109 Taxmann.com 93 · 2019 · High Court
77
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
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

Wipro Limited vs. The State of Karnataka

In the result, the revisions are allowed

STRP/70/2014HC Karnataka07 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 22(1)Section 23(1)

Form No.4 under the Act for the Assessment Years. Since, there were mistakes in the annual returns in Form No.4, therefore, petitioner filed revised returns in Form No.4. The particulars of which are reproduced below for the facility of reference: Assessment Year Date of Filing Form 4 Date of filing ... deemed assessment order under Section 12C(8) of the Act in terms of Notification No.FD 116 CSL 2006(3) dated 31.03.2006 without considering the revised return filed by the petitioner which was filed before the deemed acceptance of the annual returns. Since, the order passed by the Assessing Officer suffered

DCIT, Circle - 3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. the Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1005/KOL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

reflecting total income of Rs.217,07,87,536/-. According to the AO, during the course of hearing, assessee submitted a revised return of income on 18.05.2010 declaring total income of Rs.211,03,84,852/- which was accepted by the AO. Later, scrutiny was made and the original assessment was framed

Rajesh Kumar Prop., Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1546/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Rajesh Kumar Prop, Vs. Acit, N. W. Overseas, 42,Devi Murti Panipat Circle, Coloy, Panipat Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Kumar, SR. DR
Section 143Section 36Section 40Section 43B

income tax return and therefore applying the provisions of Section 43B of the income tax act the above disallowance was made in the revised return filed by the assessee. 4. The assessee is engaged in the business of dealing in surgical equipments and accessories, linen etc in the name

Mudra Share Stock Brokers Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result is appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2363/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2020AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 35ASection 80G

this case, the return of income was e-filed on. 16.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs, 14,53,259/. The assessee also filed a revised return on 25.03.2015 declaring total income at Rs.64,53,259/-.The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) on 13/01/2016 by determining the total income ... Rs.64,53,259/-, as per the revised return. In the course of assessment assessing officer observed the assessee company is a registered Stock Broker on NSE and BSE and OTCE and also involved in the activities of finance. The assessee has credited income of Rs.67,66,667/- which consists

Modine Thermal Systems Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Corp Cir-4(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 37(1)

unrealised forex fluctuation loss on reinstatement of ECB utilized for purchase of assets within India, which was not made in the original return or revised return by the assessee. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year ... income for the assessment year 2014-15 was filed on 29.11.2014 admitting loss of ₹.1,01,23,584/-, which was revised by filing revised return of income on 03.11.2015 admitting loss of ₹.1,11,92,638/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AR of the assessee vide letter dated

Modine Thermal Systems Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Corp Cir-4(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2020AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 37(1)

unrealised forex fluctuation loss on reinstatement of ECB utilized for purchase of assets within India, which was not made in the original return or revised return by the assessee. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year ... income for the assessment year 2014-15 was filed on 29.11.2014 admitting loss of ₹.1,01,23,584/-, which was revised by filing revised return of income on 03.11.2015 admitting loss of ₹.1,11,92,638/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AR of the assessee vide letter dated

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5238/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

case of CIT Vs Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 560 held that reopening is invalid and quashed the same. 16. As regards the revised return, the CIT(A) held that the section 147 has been incorporated in the Act for taxing the income which has escaped the assessment ... Apex court in Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. 198 ITR 297, the CIT(A) held that the benefit claimed by the assessee through the revised return is not maintainable. 17. As regards the depreciation, the CIT(A) held that the property being the plots of land and building which

DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi vs. Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 5237/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

case of CIT Vs Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 560 held that reopening is invalid and quashed the same. 16. As regards the revised return, the CIT(A) held that the section 147 has been incorporated in the Act for taxing the income which has escaped the assessment ... Apex court in Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. 198 ITR 297, the CIT(A) held that the benefit claimed by the assessee through the revised return is not maintainable. 17. As regards the depreciation, the CIT(A) held that the property being the plots of land and building which

Anant Raj Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed partly as indicated above

ITA 4736/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA; Ms
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50

case of CIT Vs Kelvinator India Ltd. 320 ITR 560 held that reopening is invalid and quashed the same. 16. As regards the revised return, the CIT(A) held that the section 147 has been incorporated in the Act for taxing the income which has escaped the assessment ... Apex court in Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. 198 ITR 297, the CIT(A) held that the benefit claimed by the assessee through the revised return is not maintainable. 17. As regards the depreciation, the CIT(A) held that the property being the plots of land and building which

Gaurang Associates, Thane vs. DCIT Circle-1, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-

ITA 1966/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gaurang Associates, The Dy. Commissioner Of A-1, Anmol Society, Sahakar Income Tax, Circle – 1 Colony, Naupada, Thane Thane (West)- 400602 Vs. Pan: Aagfg1239H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)
Section 2Section 271Section 3Section 4Section 5Section 6Section 9

respect of income to the tune of Rs. 25,97,650/- though the said income was offered in the revised return filed by the appellant firm.” 3. This case was fixed for hearing on 23.11.2020. However, when the case was called out for hearing, none appeared on behalf

Smt. Ragila V Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed

ITA 1957/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya: A.Y : 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

Officer has stated that it is evident that the assessee has not offered the correct income for taxation. The assessee has also not filed revised return for computation on her own withdrawing the inaccurate claims made by her. The income would have escaped assessment resulting into loss of revenue

M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1429/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)
Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

loose papers found and impounded, additional income was worked out at Rs.1,33,27,282/- which was offered for tax in A.Y.2013-14 by filing revised return of income. Further, in the absence of any corroborative evidences found as a result of survey, the balance amount ... total of such unrecorded entries worked out at Rs.1,33,27,282/- and the same were duly offered for taxation in A.Y.2013-14 through revised return and has been accepted by department. However, just because such sum was lower than Rs. 5.00 crores, i.e. the alleged admission by director, addition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Mojika Real Estate & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1236/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar (CIT)
Section 133ASection 133A(3)Section 145(3)

loose papers found and impounded, additional income was worked out at Rs.1,33,27,282/- which was offered for tax in A.Y.2013-14 by filing revised return of income. Further, in the absence of any corroborative evidences found as a result of survey, the balance amount ... total of such unrecorded entries worked out at Rs.1,33,27,282/- and the same were duly offered for taxation in A.Y.2013-14 through revised return and has been accepted by department. However, just because such sum was lower than Rs. 5.00 crores, i.e. the alleged admission by director, addition

M/S Shree Magnets Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2424/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2020AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

company and filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16, declaring Nil income on 30/09/2015. Later it filed a revised return of income on 11/11/2015 declaring total income of Rs.93,390/-. The assessee claims that it had declared income u/s 115JB of the Act of Rs.37

Cigna Health Solution India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1117/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

declaring total loss of Rs.21,24,640/-. The assessee is engaged in providing market research in health insurance and healthcare service systems. It filed revised return to include net income of Rs.18,27,684/-, thereby declaring total loss of Rs.2,96,956/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment

ITO 12 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Cigna Health Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1650/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

declaring total loss of Rs.21,24,640/-. The assessee is engaged in providing market research in health insurance and healthcare service systems. It filed revised return to include net income of Rs.18,27,684/-, thereby declaring total loss of Rs.2,96,956/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment

Percy E Vandrevala, Mumbai vs. DCIT 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3600/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh
Section 139(5)

profit from share trading under business income) claimed by the appellant during the course of the assessment proceedings and not by way of revised return of income. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in misconstruing the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ... return of income filed originally, the assessee itself has claimed business income from the transactions in shares. The assessee was supposed to file a revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act, in case any omission or any wrong statement was filed in the original return of income

Sap India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2072/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (D.R)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 80ISection 92C

services and manufacturing of DVDs. The assessee has filed the return of income for the Asst. Year 2011-12 on 30.11.2011 and subsequently a revised return of income was filed with total income of Rs.1,33,93,62,511/- under the normal Income Tax provisions. Whereas, the total income

Print Land Digital India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, for statistical purpose

ITA 4468/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaa N D Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 56(2)(viib)

order from different parties. The assessee filed e-return of income on 28.09.2015 declaring an income of Rs.2,72,08,797/- and revised return filed on 29.09.2015 declaring loss of Rs. 2,76,75,697/-. The Assessing Officer passed assessment order dated 30.12.2017 thereby assessing the total income

First Tek Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Vijayawada

In the result appeals of the revenue for the A

ITA 609/VIZ/2019[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Nov 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.574-577/Viz/2019 & 609/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S First Tek Private Limited Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Bhavanasi Anjaneyulu Income Tax Sri Balaji Chemical Industries Central Circle Main Road, Piduguralla Vijayawada Guntur [Pan : Aaacf8840N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.607/Viz/2019 & 608/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2009-10 & 2011-2012) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S First Tek Private Limited Income Tax Bhavanasi Anjaneyulu Central Circle Sri Balaji Chemical Industries Vijayawada Main Road, Piduguralla Guntur [Pan : Aaacf8840N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2020 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 24.11.2020 Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 1O

taxes and filed the return of income, if there is mistake in the return of income , the assessee ought to have filed the revised return of income within the time allowed under the Act. Alternatively, the assessee ought to have taken remedial measures by filing the petition u/s 264 before ... instant case, the assessee has neither agitated the addition before the AO nor filed the revision petition u/s 264 of the Act or the revised return. It is also observed from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee has not retracted the statement given u/s 132(4) before