“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

Inject Care Parenterals Pvt. Ltd., Vapi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 739/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 739/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Inject Care Parenterals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., Plot No.130, Gidc, Vs. Circle-2(1)(1), Vapi, Ahmedabad. Gujarart.

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36Section 36(1)(v)Section 37Section 43B

account of delayed payment of ESI and PF i. The assessee in the present case has filed his revised return of income dated 18-04-2011 claiming the deduction of the aforesaid amount whereas the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State

The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Syndicate Bank

The appeals are disposed of

ITA/98/2010HC Karnataka23 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 115JSection 14ASection 260Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)Section 43D

urged that the assessee cannot be permitted a return filed by 10 him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. In support of aforesaid submission, reference has been made to decision of the Supreme Court in ‘GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hubli vs. M/S. Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Dharwad

In the result the appeal is Partly allowed

ITA 1391/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Pranav Krishna, & Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

made by the Assessee. 6. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee as made in the revised return of income and in doing so followed the decision of the ITAT, Bangalore Bench in the case of Syndicate Bank Vs. DCIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hubli vs. M/S. Karnataka Vikas Grameen Bank, Dharwad

In the result the appeal is Partly allowed

ITA 1392/BANG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Pranav Krishna, & Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

Liaqath Ullah Khan, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 803/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Bleliaqatullah Khan, Vs. Ito, Ward-7, C/O Mohd. Afzal, Advocate, Hyderabad. 11-5-465, Sherson’S Residency, Flat No. 402, Criminal Court Road, Red Hills, Hyderabad. Pan No. Aenpk 9509 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal– AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas – Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)

income by admitting loss of Rs.7,08,187/- from trading of shares and income from property of (Liaqatullah Khan) Rs.50,820/-. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 30/09/2011, as per the revised return trading resulted into profit of Rs. 10,58,953/-. The assessee was having carry forward loss ... available on record. 8. In this case, the assessee has filed his return of income admitting loss of Rs. 7,08,187/- and subsequently revised return has been filed by showing trading profit of Rs. 10,58,953/-. In his return, he has claimed set off of carry forward loss

Kohli Industries, Mumbai vs. ITO-24(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 768/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Section 24Section 80G

agreed for disallowances, but requested for deductions u/s 80G of the I.T.Act, 1961. Since, the assesee has not claimed deductions u/s 80G by filing revised return, the Ld. AO has not consider the claim of the assesee for deductions towards donations u/s 80G of the I.T.Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved

ACIT Cir-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mark & Spencer Reliance India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6703/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaacit, Circle-4(2)(2) Vs. Marks & Spencer Reliance Room No.640, 6Th Floor India Pvt.Ltd. 4Th Floor, Court House Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020 Lokmanya Tilak Road Dhobi Talao Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No.Aafcm5990D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 4Section 80

case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal considering the claim of loss by the assessee company in the revised return when the same was not claimed in original return as legal and valid, which is contrast with the section 80 and section ... forward loss of earlier years. The assesee has considered brought forward losses for AY 2009-10 at Rs. 5,75,97,803/- as per revised return filed for that year. The Ld. AO, however restricted the brought forward loss

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) - 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Agarwal Textiles Industries P. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5298/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5298/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit Cir 6(1)(1), M/S Agarwal Textiles R. No. 563, Industries Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Suit No. 226 Bussa बिधम/ M. K. Road, Industrial Premises Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Century Bazar Lane, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400 025 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaaca3872F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 176/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Agarwal Textiles Dcit Cir 6(1)(1), R. No. 563, Industries Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Suit No. 226 Bussa बिधम/ M. K. Road, Industrial Premises Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Century Bazar Lane, Prabhadevi, Mumbai- 400 025 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Anandi Varma, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Mandar Vaidya, Ar

For Appellant: Shri Anandi Varma, DRFor Respondent: Shri Mandar Vaidya, AR

Section 147

derivative securities. Assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.09 declaring total loss of Rs. 1,25, 38,35,120/-. Thereafter assessee has filed revised return of income on 30.03.11 revising the total loss of Rs. 1,25,41,63,342/-. The return was processed

The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2548/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Shipping Corporation Of India The Additional Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax (Ltu), Shipping House 10Th Floor, 29Th Floor, World Trade 245, Madam Cama Road, Vs. Centre, Colaba, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Acit-Ltu, M/S The Shipping Corporation 28Th Floor, Centre-1, Of India Limited, World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade, 245, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400005 Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaact1524F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)

Section 143Section 147Section 148

assessment year under consideration declaring the total income of Rs. 98,31,28,573/- claiming TDS amounting to Rs. 5,73,81,225/-. Revised return was also filed claiming TDS of Rs. 7,77,82,646/-. The return was processed and assessment order ... response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee asked for reasons for reopening of assessment and further requested to treat the original return and revised return filed by the assessee as the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO supplied

Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2128/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT)

Section 143Section 147Section 148

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hero Motors Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the ld AO is dismissed

ITA 23/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Hero Motors Ltd, Circle-1, 603, International Trade Ltu, New Delhi Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan: Delho0536E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40a

return of income showing Nil income under normal provision of the Act and a book profit of Rs. 9,52,69,347/-. Subsequently, assessee revised return of income on 31.03.2013 to claim the higher amount of TDS. The assessment u/s 143(3) was passed

Palagiri Bawaji, Tirupati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Tirupathi

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

ITA 897/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2014-15 Palagiri Bawaji, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Tirupati. Ward-1(1), Pan: Bxopp 4039 G Tirupati. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Sri Rajat Mitra, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/01/2020 Order

For Appellant: Sri K.A. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri Rajat Mitra, DR

Section 143(3)

First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that the commission income is part of the sales admitted in the revised return of income filed on 17/7/2016 and hence no separate addition is warranted. 5. The appellant craves leave to add or amend or alter any of the grounds

Siddhant Jayantibhai Pawasia, Bhavnagar vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

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

ITA 244/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: None

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154

much as in the said case assessee without there being any assessment proceedings, assessee made new claim through a letter without filing revised return whereas in the present case the Appellant has filed revised computation of income during assessment proceeding which was duly discussed and accepted by the assessing officer

Shri Vinodchandra Narendrarai Bhatt, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No.3 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1819/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1819/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R Shah, A.R

Section 80Section 80GSection 90

directed to be deleted. 3.0 The learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground before him in respect of non-consideration of revised return by the learned A.O. and not granting the credit for Double Taxation Relief u/s 90 of the Act OF Income ... statistical purposes. 9. Ground No.3 concerns grievance towards not granting credit for double taxation relief. As pointed out on behalf of the assessee, the revised return filed by the assessee to claim double taxation relief under s.90 of the Act amounting to Rs.1,25,935/- in respect of foreign

Greaves Cotton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 279/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Smt. Arati Vissanji with Shri Amol Patankar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Sunil K. Jha (CIT-DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14ASection 234DSection 244ASection 254(1)Section 3Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue submits that before Assessing Officer, the assessee claimed relief without filing revised return of income. In the computation of income, the assessee itself computed cost of acquisition and declared income in the form of Capital Gain. The ld. DR submits that ... Greaves Cotton Ltd. Officer is not entitled to accept revised claim without filing of revised return of income, however, we are in agreement with the contention of ld. AR of the assessee that the appellate authority have jurisdiction to consider revised claim as held by jurisdictional High Court in Pruthvi

Il & Fs Windfarms Lat ( Previously Known As Il & Fs Energy Dev. Co.Ltd), Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6133/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shir S Rifaur Rahmanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6133 & 6134/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08

For Appellant: Ms. Vidya PhanseFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora

Section 234BSection 234bSection 80I

income. Aggrieved by the order of the A.O the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 3. The CIT(A) held that the revised return is not as per law and further held that the interest receipts are not derived from business of generating electricity, therefore, no deduction ... Mumbai. 7 We have considered the rival contention as well as the relevant material on record. As far as the validity of the revised return is concerned, undisputedly, the assessee has filed revised return within the period of limitation as prescribed under the provisions of the Sec. 139(5). Therefore

M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd vs. Addlcit RG - 7(1)

ITA 6141/MUM/2003[2000 01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodm/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Of Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Income - Tax Range-7(1), (Earlier Known As Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013 Pan – Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) D.C.I.T, Circle-7 (1), M/S Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. 452, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Piramal Healthcare Ltd. Mumbai. 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Annexe, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400013

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Senior advocateFor Respondent: Shri Ronak Doshi, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14ASection 44A

return of income on 18.03.2002, declaring its total income at Rs.nil and the „book profit‟ under Sec. 115JA at Rs.13,51,56,008/-. The revised return of income filed by the assessee company was processed as such under Sec. 143(1)(a) of the Act. Thereafter, the case ... Mahendra Mills (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 381 has laid down that the assessee is entitled to exercise his option even through the filing of revised return and that option cannot be denied to him nor can depreciation be thrust on the assessee against his willingness. It was held that until

DCIT, Rohtak vs. The Rohtak Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rohtak

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4924/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sh.S.K.Bansal, Adv

Section 143(3)

which was then revised. The Assessing Officer was of the view that difference of the income shown in the original return and in the revised return of income of Rs.8,25,871/- should be added to the income of the assessee. The CIT(A) vide para 2 has tabulated

Shantinath S. Vathare, Sangli vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Sangli

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2950/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2950/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). Thereafter, the assessee filed e-return of income as his revised return on 26- 03-2013. In the revised return, the assessee declared total income of Rs.1,46,439/- and also agricultural income of Rs.25

Smt. Sanjukta Prusty, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Panda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250

income from salary. She filed the return of income for the year under consideration declaring income of Rs.7,80,356/-. The assessee also filed revised return of income declaring total income at Rs.9,51,020/- and paid tax of Rs.1,23,810/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and during ... getting instruction from the IT. Department vide letter dated 22.10.2013 from the IT. Department after closer of the Capital Gain Account Scheme filed the revised returns incorporating the computation of capital gain in their P a g e 6 | 21 ITA No.95/ CTK/2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 14 respective