“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

Value Line Equities P. Ltd ( Formerly Knwoan As M.S Sb & T Securities P.Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 4605/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm& Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4605/Mumbai/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak, AR byFor Respondent: Ms. Bharati Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271

next year by reversing the entry which is credited to the profit and loss account. 2.5 The assessee did not file the revised return under impression that there is no tax evasion as the assessee has reversed the said amount in the next year. 3. STT: 3.1 Assessee has paid

Sabre Asia Pacific Pte Ltd (Earlier Known As M/S.Abacus International Pte Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4968/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4968/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Sabre Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)- 1(1)(1), Room No. (Earlier Known As M/S Abacus International Pte Ltd.), Abacus Plaza, 3 Tampines Central I, 117, 1St Floor, Scindia House, Ballard बिधम/ # 08-01 Singapore 529540 Estate, Mumbai 400 038. Vs. C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp India Bulls Financial Centre Tower 3, 28Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (W),Mumbai-400 013. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabca6590M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Avaneesh Tiwari, D.R

Section 143(3)

granting short TDS credit of Rs. 16,50,637/- (i.e Rs. 5,74,13,003/- - Rs. 5,90,63,640/- as claimed in the revised return of income). 7.2 The ld. DCIT has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7.3 The learned DCIT ... income for the year under consideration, viz. A.Y 2013- 14 on 29.11.2013, disclosing a total income of Rs. 34,42,502/-. Thereafter, a revised return of income was filed on 31.03.2015 to place on record additional TDS certificates. During the course of the assessment proceedings it was submitted

Shri Ram Babu Agrawal C/O- R-13, Yudhishthar Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 700/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jul 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Miss. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)

291/PN/2014. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has not rectified his return of income for filing revised return of income. Further, the remedy if any is available only U/s 119(2(b) of the Act and the CBDT has already been issued consequential circular ... DCIT The only reason for denial of exclusion of the income from the total income of the assessee is non filing of the revised return of income. It is pertinent to note that since the return of income was filed by the asessee belatedly, therefore, the assessee could not file

Smt. Kumudini V. Gavit, Nandurbar vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 4, Dhule

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1912/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1912/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Maruti W. Maddewad

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee was established from facts that assessee accepted mistake and did not prefer any appeal against order of AO-- Non-- furnishing of revised return did not mean that bonafide mistake in making a 6 A.Y.2013-14 wrong claim should be visited with imposition of penalty--Moreover, time for filing a revised

Suma Shilp Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 6, Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1681/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

Section 14A

case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of leasing, wind power generation, trading in shares, promoters & builders. It filed revised return declaring gross income at Rs.5.50 crore. It also earned dividend income of Rs.1,83,420/-, which was claimed as exempt. The assessee offered suo moto disallowance

Shell India Markets P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu 2, Mumbai

ITA 2299/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood ()

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Mohan, CIT D.R

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

return of income for A.Y 2009-10 on 30.09.2009, declaring a total loss of Rs. 212,01,77,460/-. Subsequently the assessee filed a revised return of income on 24.03.2011, declaring a total loss of Rs. 204,62,84,368/-. In the revised return of income the assessee had claimed

Hexaware Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1861/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanआअसं. 1861/मुं/2018 ("न.व. 2011-12) M/S. Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Unit No.152, Block –A, Sector -3, Millenium Business Park, Ttc Industrial Area, Mahape, Navi Mumbai 400 701 Pan: Aabca3203F ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Mamta Bansal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 80Section 80J

Undisputedly, in the present case assessee did not make claim of deduction u/s 80JJAA of the Act in the return of income or revised return of income. The fresh claim was allegedly made at the time of assessment proceedings. In the assessment order dated 27/03/2015, the Assessing Officer

Voltas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6612/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar() & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Voltas Limited Asst. Cit Range-8(3)(2) Voltas House-A, 4Th Floor, Vs. Room No. 615, 6Th Floor, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai 400 033 Pan No. Aaacv2809D Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-8(3)(2) Voltas Limited R. No.615, 6Th Floor, Vs. Voltas House-A, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400 033 Pan No. Aaacv2809 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. Uodal Raj Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

premier Air conditioning and Engineering Service Provider, had filed its “Original‟ return of income on 23.11.2012, which thereafter was followed by filing of a revised return of income on 28.03.2014, declaring a total income of Rs. 199,46,34,280/-. Subsequently, the case of the asssessee was selected for scrutiny ... 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. Vs Commissioner of Income

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Asea Brown Boveri Ltd

ITA/420/2012HC Karnataka24 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 40Section 43BSection 80H

when the same was not verified by the assessing officer as it was not claimed in the return of income or in the revised return as held by the Apex Court in M/s Goetze India Ltd., vs. CIT (2006 204 CTR (SC) 182? (viii) Whether the tribunal was correct ... income. It is also urged that the tribunal ought to have appreciated that claim for 11 deduction can be made only by way of revised return and in fact a claim for deduction should be made in the return. It is further submitted that the tribunal could not have dealt

SMC Investments Advisors Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2905/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. Anil Chaturvediassessment Year: 2015-16 (Through Video Conferencing) Smc Investments Advisors Vs. Acit Ltd., 11/5-B, 3Rd Floor, Circle- 24 (1) Pusa Road, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 005 Pan No. Aabcs 8068 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Rano Jain, Advocate Respondent By Sh. R. K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 17/06/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/06/2020 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.02.2019 Of The Commission Of Income Tax (A)- Xxv, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 40

commodities and Securities. The assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 24.09.2015 declaring Nil income. Thereafter, assessee filed revised return of income on 18.11.2016 disclosing Nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) vide order dated

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

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

ITA 2946/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, V.P & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2415/Del/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2008-09 Michelin India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Michelin India Tyres Pvt.Ltd.) 3Rd Floor, Orchid Business Park, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122002. ..........अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan-Aadcm8454G. Vs The Jcit (Osd), …………. ""यथ" / Respondent Circle-6(1), New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 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 Assessment Year 2008-09 was incorporated on 12.11.2003 as a result

M/S. Michelin India Tyres Private Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT(OSD), New Delhi

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

ITA 2415/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2020AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 92C

M/S Hajee A.P.Bava & Company vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the appeal is

ITA/555/2018HC Karnataka19 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

return of income for the Assessment year 2014-15 by declaring total income of Rs.7,71,76,700/- on 30.11.2014. The assessee filed the revised return of income on 28.11.2015 by declaring total income of Rs.20,83,75,020/-. The original return of the assessee was processed under Section

Banyan Sustainable Waste Managament Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Warangal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 362/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Banyan Sustainable Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Waste Management Pvt Income Tax, Ltd., Hyderabad. Circle-1, Pan: Aafcb 5861 L Warangal. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Gopichand Bhattaram Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/06/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Sri Gopichand BhattaramFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR

Section 13Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

engaged in Waste Management business, filed its original return of income on 30/09/2015 declaring loss of Rs. 50,94,693/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 25/07/2016 and once again on 13/2/2017 declaring loss of Rs. 69,21,019. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected ... scrutiny under CASS and assessment was completed wherein the Ld. AO made addition towards deferred tax liability and further rejected the revised return filed by the assessee U/s. 139(5) of the Act and disallowed to carry forward of the loss of Rs.69,21,018 by stating that the original

M/S. Anant Enterprises, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 764/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.763/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Anant Enterprises Flat No.11, Plot No.4/1 Midc, Pimpri, Pune-411 018 Pan : Aacfa0876G .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-8, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Alok Malviya

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

manufacture of auto components. The assessee filed its return of income for A.Y.2010-11 on 24.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs.64,28,290/-. Revised return was filed by the assessee on 25.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.64,89,986/-. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s.143

M/S. Anant Enterprises, Pune vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 763/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Alok Malviya

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Gtl Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 588/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 588/Mum/2019 & Cross Objection No. 192/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit, Ltu-2, Gtl Ltd. 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World 412, Janmabhoomi बिधम/ Trade Centre, Mumbai. Chambers, 29, Walchand Vs. Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 038 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaacg3742L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 937/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit, Ltu-2, Gtl Ltd. 29Th Floor, Centre-1, World 412, Janmabhoomi बिधम/ Trade Centre, Mumbai. Chambers, 29, Walchand Vs. Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 038 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar, Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Simi Samant, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 21.01.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 15.06.2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Simi Samant, DR

Section 143(2)

income for assessment year 2013–14, declaring total loss of Rs. 1,89,70,49,633/- was electronically filed on 26.11.2013. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return of income declaring total loss of Rs. 1,90,80,77,269/- on 10.11.2014. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices

Sheth Commercial Co., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-14, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1100/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)

income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 04.09.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 77,43,630/-. After that, the assessee had filed its revised return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 declaring total income at Rs. 77,43,630/-. The assessment was made

Bantec Tps India P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2074/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 2074/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2012-13) M/S.Banc Tec Tps India Pvt. Ltd. Tribunal-341, Tower 3, 4Th Floor, International Infotech Park, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 Pan: Aaact8971E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle.15(1)(2) Mumbai ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry Sr. Advocate with Ms. Urvi MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari

Section 143(3)

rejected it solely on the ground that assessee had not claimed it either in the return of income or by filing a revised return of income. In our view, the aforesaid reasoning of learned DRP is contrary to the settled legal position. In case of Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders ... High Court has held that even if the assessee has failed to claim a deduction either in the return of income or by filing revised return of income, the assessee can make such claim subsequently. Even in case of Goetz India Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

M/S Chandrika Investments, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1455/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 154Section 24ASection 288B

return of income in response to notice u/s. 142(1) dated 17.3.2010 declaring total income of Rs.3,42,45,991. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 31.3.2010 declaring total income of Rs.1,27,50,047. An order of assessment dated 17.10.2011 was passed by the ITO, Ward ... giving effect to the order of the Tribunal dated 23.9.2016 in which he determined the total income of the assessee as per the revised return of income @ Rs.1,27,50,050. By virtue of this order, a refund became payable to the Assessee as per the following calculations