“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

Sh Amit Mahajan, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 40/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

DCIT 280 CIT 2016 (Gujrat High Court) to the same footing. Further the Ld. AR submitted that when the assesse has filed revised return after the search and such revised return has been accepted by the Assessing Officer, then merely by virtue of fact that such return shows a higher

Sh. Kasturi Lal Mahajan, Jammu vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jammu

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 190/ASR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Randeep Gampa, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1218/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Anil Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

from salary, income from house property and also profit from business of proprietorship concern and claimed loss from other sources. Subsequently, he filed a revised return of income for the AY.2013-14 on 30-01-2014, declaring total income of Rs.11,12,420/-. The said return of income was selected

Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1339/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1338 & 1339/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust, The Income Tax Officer, 655/20 & 600, Jagilkathirampatti Vs. Exemptions Ward, Village & Post, Pochampalli Taluk, Salem. Krishnagiri District 635 206. [Pan:Aaits5220J ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, Both Dated 25.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Passed Against The Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] As Well As Under Section 154 Of The Act. Against The Order Under Section 154 Of The Act, The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds: “1. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Is Not Justified In Holding That Non-Allowance Of Expenditure Incurred To Earn Gross Receipts From A College & School Involves A Complex & Debatable Legal Issue.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

filed the return within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act and moreover, the assessee has not filed any revised return of income to consider the claim of deduction as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd. v. CIT (supra ... further submission that there was no apparent mistake warranting any rectification under section 154 of the Act and moreover, there was no revised return of income filed within the time prescribed under the Act to allow any deduction as claimed 7 I.T.A. Nos.1338 & 1339/Chny/19 by the assessee and pleaded

Sree Venkateswara Educational Trust, Krishnagiri vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward, Salem

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1338/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154

Privi Organics Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 6324/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shris. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee filed its return of income on 15th October 2010, declaring total income of ` 8,52,45,790. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 29th April 2011, offering income of ` 13,28,07,892. The assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") vide order dated 28th February 2013, accepting the income declared in the revised return of income. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, as well as the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the purchases worth

Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 606/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.R. SureshFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Court in the case of 'Goetze (India) Limited v. CIT' (2006) 157 Taxman 1, relating to the restriction of making the claim through a revised return was limited to the powers of the Assessing Authority and the said judgment does not impinge on the power or negate the powers

Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 605/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.R. SureshFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4943/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Appeal No.24 of 2019 order dated 11.11.2019, held as under: - “3. Ms Razaq, learned Advocate submits that in this case the revised returns filed by the respondents indicated that the disclosures were made only by piecemeal. Relying upon Mak Data 14 ITA.NOs. 4941, 4942 & 4943/MUM/2018 M/s Coast Line Shipping (India

Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4942/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Coast Line Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4941/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ravi SawanaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1479/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.R. SureshFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 14A

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Mentor Capital Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1476/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri N.R. SureshFor Respondent: Smt Jothilakshmi Nayak

Section 143(3)Section 14A

M/S Incap Contract Manufacturing Services Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 697/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhit(Tp)A No.697/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT) Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

refused to entertain the claim made by the assessee by holding that IT(TP)A No.697/Bang/2017 Page 11 of 12 without filing a revised return, the assessee cannot make any claim and in this regard placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case

M/S. Delhi Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2989/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

Ground Power Unit (GPU) and Pre Conditioned Air Unit (PCA) at normal rate of depreciation i.e. 15% for plant and machinery. However, in the revised return of income, the assessee had claimed 100% depreciation on these 2 Delhi Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Pr. CIT two items. In the original ... return, the depreciation claimed was Rs. 7,30,02,697/- whereas in the revised return it was in the Rs. 486,498,393/-. It was further seen that during the year the assessee has debited finance expense of Rs. 43,046,771/- to its profit and loss account

Haresh Khiamal Nanwani, Mumbai vs. ACIT-17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the order passed by the Ld

ITA 6534/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Haresh Khiamal Nanwani, Acit-17(1), Room No. Ab-117, 1017/1018, Dalamal Tower, Vs. Staff Room-135, Aayakarbhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, 211, Mumbai-400020. Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021. Pan No. Adgpn9628J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. Mody, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak, Sr. DR

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

assessment year (AY) 2013-14 on 25.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.28,20,630/-. He revised his computation of total income and such revised return of income was filed on 31.03.2015 declaring total income at Rs.46,83,050/-, claiming current year loss of Rs.1,94,05,149/-. The assessee

DCIT Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai vs. Tanfac Industreis Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 2642/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2642/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Tanfac Industries Limited, No. 66, Oxford Centre, 1St Floor, Income Tax, Vs. Corporate Circle 3(1), Sir C P Ramaswamy Road, Chennai 600 034. Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaact2591A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Guru Bashyam, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai Dated 28.06.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made Towards Hedging Expenditure Of ₹.3,52,72,000/- While Releasing Premium For The Forex Cover.

For Appellant: Shri Guru Bashyam, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 43(5)

return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 dated 28.09.2012 declaring loss of 2 I.T.A. No. 2642/Chny/19 ₹.22,90,55,703/-. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 03.03.2014 admitting a loss of ₹.23,07,13,703/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. After considering

Convergys India Services Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Convergys Infowavz Pvt. Ltd.) (Formerly Known As Infowavz International Pvt. Ltd.), Thane vs. I.T.O. 10(1)(2) (Erstwhile I.T.O. 8(2)(1)), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

return of income for AY 2011-12 on 25-11-2011 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the assesee had filed its revised return on 29-03-2012 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. Under normal provisions of the Act by disallowing the deferred rent. However, the same

Addl CIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Ltd ( Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4452/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Additional Commissioner Vs. M/S. Tata Communications Of Income Tax, Range – Limited (Formerly Known As 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited) Mumbai Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Room No.540/564, 5 Th M.G.Road, Fort Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 001 Maharshi Karve Road, New Marine Linmes Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Tata Communications Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Range – 1(3) Videsh Sanchar Nigam Mumbai Limited) Room No.540, Aayakar Videsh Sanchar Bhavan Bhavan, Maharshi Karve M.G.Road, Fort Road Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacv2808C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Tata Communications Ltd.

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 263

JCIT (OSD) Range 1(3), Mumbai u/s.154 of the Act for A.Y.2005-06 dated 25/04/2006 e. Page No.5 of the paper book contains revised return of income filed by the assessee on 29/03/2007 for A.Y.2005-06 wherein the Income Tax department has given stamp of DCIT, Range 1(3), Mumbai M/s. Tata

Caprihans India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dccc -36, Mumbai

ITA 4252/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos. 4252 To 4254/Mum/2011 (Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2007-08) M/S Caprihans India Ltd. Dy. Cit Central Circl-36 Block-D, Shivsagar Estate, Mumbai. Vs. Dr. A.B.Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Pan – Aaacc1646F (Appellant) (Respondent) The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M/S Caprihans India Ltd. Central Circle-36, Room No.11, Block-D, Shivsagar Estate Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Dr. Annie Besant Road,Worli, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai- 400 018 Pan – Aaacc1646F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri R. Murlidhar, A.R Respondent By: Shri Awungshi Gimson, D.R Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.12.2019 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Assessee & The Revenue Being Aggrieved With The Order Passed By The Cit(A)- 41, Mumbai, Dated 31.12.2009 For A.Y. 2005-06 Have Preferred Cross-Appeals Before Us. Also, The Assessee Is In Appeal Against The Respective Orders Of The Cit(A)-41 For A.Y. 2006-07 & A.Y. 2007-08, Both Dated 31.12.2009. As Certain Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned

For Appellant: Shri R. Murlidhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson, D.R

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(1)Section 153C

capital receipt could not entertained since the said amount was offered to tax in the return by the assessee and since no revised return was filed, the claim could not be allowed in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze India ... appeal that was raised by the assessee, but then observing that no such claim was raised either in the original return or the revised return of income, he held a conviction that the said fresh claim of the assessee could not be admitted in light of the judgment