← 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

Sarovar Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7348/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ramlal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7348/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Sarovar Hotels Dcit Circle 3(3), Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th P.Ltd 42 Mittal बिधम/ Fl., R. No. 609, M. K. Chambers, Nariman Vs. Road, Point, Mumbai- 400 Mumbai-400 020 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No.Aaacs8083L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh IraniFor Respondent: Shri L.K.S Dehiya
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35ASection 73A

liability on the book profit of Rs. 11,66,64,770/- u/s. 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( in short, the ‘Act’). Subsequently, revised return of income was filed 27-03-2012 to claim additional TDS. The revised return was processed

Dhl Logistics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1030/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Sooddhl Logistics Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 201A,Silver Utopia, Income Tax Circle 9(3)(1), Cardinal Gracias Road, Mumbai Vs. Chakala, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 059 Pan – Aaacm6824H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan &
Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)Section 92D

return of income for A.Y. 2010-11 on 13.10.2010, declaring its total income at Rs.97,56,96,430/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return declaring a total income of Rs.75,20,88,621/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such under

Shri. Harish K S, Davanagere vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3, Davanagere

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1299/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Abbigere Kaleshappa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 282

which the income was first assessable ; or (b ) one year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under sub-section

Sh. Raghunath Sahai Puri(Decd), Pathankot vs. The Depty Commissioner of Income Tax, Pathankot

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

ITA 633/ASR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 633/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Alok Kumar CIT-DR
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 45Section 48

land by M/s. Defence Services Co- op. House Building Society Ltd., Mohali and arising to the assessee was disclosed by the assessee in the revised return of income filed on 07.01.2010. However, vide order dated 4 Sh. Raghunath Sahai Puri v. D.C.I.T. 27.12.2010, passed ... Defence Services Co-op. House Building Society Ltd., Mohali (facts discussed in detail supra) and arising to the appellant was disclosed in the revised return of the income by the appellant on 07.01.2010 but vide order u/s 143(3) the assessment of LTCG has been framed at RS.1

The Pr Commissioner of vs. M/S Karavali Housing

In the result, the order

ITA/125/2016HC Karnataka19 Dec 2019

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 35(4)Section 66(1)

case? (ii) Whether the revisional authority was justified in reversing the order, particularly on the ground that the assessee did not file a revised return under Section 35(4) of the KVAT Act, 2003? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that appellant is a partnership ... further submitted that the power under Section 64(1) of the Act has wrongly been invoked only the ground of non filing of revised returns and the second appellate authority failed to appreciate that once tax is levied by the authority prescribed, there is no discovery of any omission

Sh. Mohamad Yaqoob Khan, Kashmir vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Anantnag, Anantnag

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

ITA 436/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 436/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Naresh Kumar Bhagat (DR)
Section 139(5)Section 145(3)

also failed to produce WIP monthly statement. The AO further noted that the expenses under the head salaries or wages are claimed in the revised return at Rs.2,53,680/- as against the original claim of Rs.44,70,097/- which states that the labour charges were paid from undisclosed sources ... ITAT Mumbai in the case of IVF Holdings (P) Ltd. Mumbai v. Department of Income Tax has observed that the revised return have been filed as per the terms of the provisions of section 139(5), then the original return shall be treated as withdrawn. Without prejudice it was further

Suresh Ramkrishna Bhatmule, Thane vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1 (1), Nashik

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

ITA 835/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Sachin Y. Jawale
Section 54F

although the similar claim is available before the Assessing Officer by way of claiming through filing of revised computation of income. For filing the revised Return of Income, the assessee did not have time to revised the original return before the Assessing Officer in accordance with judgement

M/S. Shree Hatkeshwara Cargo Movers, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 5, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.474/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Suyog BhaveFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act after recording his satisfaction for doing so. In the meantime, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 29.11.2012 declaring total income of Rs.92,08,310/- which includes the admitted inadmissible expenditure of Rs.19,05,861/-. In response to notice ... u/s.148 of the Act, the assessee submitted that the revised return filed on 29.11.2012 may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer then proceeded to finalize the assessment proceeding and passed order u/s.147 of the Act on 12.11.2014. Since the assessee

The Dharangadhra People'S Co. Op. Bank Ltd., Dhrangadhra vs. The Dy. Commr. Income Tax, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 130/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.130-131/Rjt/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) बनाम/ The Dharangadhra People’S D.C.I.T, Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Surendranagar Circle, Vs. Kalpvarksh, Mandvi Chowk, Surendranagar. Dhrangadhara, Surendranagar Circle, Surendranagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat1192R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, A.R ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 20/09/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad [Ld. Cit(A) In Short] Of Even Dated 01/02/2017, Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Dated 16/02/2015 & 27/11/2015 Relevant To Assessment Years (A.Y.S) 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 139(3)Section 139(4)Section 80

appeal: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 7, Ahmedabad erred in confirming action of the assessing officer in not accepting the revised return filed by the appellant on 20-03-2014. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 7, Ahmedabad erred in confirming the action ... ground numbers 1 to 3 is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of the AO by not accepting the revised return of income and disallowing the claim of loss for Rs. 1,56,71,108.00 only. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bip Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1366/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1366/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Cir-2(1) Kolkata......................................………………………….................................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. Bip Developers Pvt. Ltd.........................................................................................Respondent Ground Floor, Building Beta Bengal Intelligent Park, Block-Ep & Gp, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 091. [Pan: Aabcb 6203 A] Appearances By: Shri Supriyo Pal, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca & Shri Saurabh Gupta, Aca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 14, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtp, Vice-(Kz)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

same was not made by the assessee company either in the return of income originally filed or by way of filing the revised return. To arrive at this conclusion, the AO relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India ... expenses. The AO considered the submission of the appellant company and was satisfied but did not allow the same on the ground that no revised return was filed by the assessee and therefore the additional claim could not be entertained in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Sarva Up Gramin Bank, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1937/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 36(1)(viia)

However, in view of the amendment of Section 36( l)(viia) of the Act with effect from April 1, 1985, it filed a revised return on April 24, 1986, enhancing the claim for deduction from Rs[ 1,19,36,000 to Rs. 1,94,21,000. Learned counsel explained that

Printman Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4029/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Chopra, CA & Sh. DineshFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Private Limited Company and filed the return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 on 31.10.2003 showing NIL income. The assessee filed a revised return on 20.11.2003 but again showing NIL income. No assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act) was done initially

M/S Dalmia Power Ltd vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-009496-009499 - 2019Supreme Court18 Dec 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

Section 139Section 139(5)

NCLT, Chennai sanctioned the Schemes vide  Orders   dated   16.10.2017,   20.10.2017, 26.10.2017, 28.12.2017, 10.01.2018, 20.04.2018 and 01.05.2018. 2.7 The Appellants/ Transferee Companies manually filed revised   Returns   of   Income   on   27.11.2018   with   the Department after the  Schemes were  sanctioned  and 4 approval   was   granted   by   the   NCLT.   The   revised Returns   were   based ... revised   and   modified computation  of total  income and  tax liability of  the Transferor/Amalgamated   Companies.   In   the   revised Returns of Income, the Appellant No.1 claimed losses in the current year to be carried forward amounting to Rs.2,44,11,837/­;   whereas   Appellant   No.2   claimed losses   in   the   current   year

Ravindra Joma Bhagat, Raigad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Panvel

In the result, the appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1246/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Pramod Kumar Parida and Jitendra NaharFor Respondent: Smt. Amrita Mishra and Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 133A

another return of income on 17-03-2011 revising its income from sale of land as Rs.7,84,51,430/-. In the subsequent return / revised return, the assessee offered profit on sale of land as capital gains. The Assessing Officer did not accept revised return of income and held ... No.1445/PN/2012 decided on 14-05-2013 restored the issues raised in appeal to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to consider the revised return filed by the assessee as valid return of income. 4. In accordance with the directions of Tribunal, the Assessing Officer framed fresh assessment vide

Anand Subhash Bohora, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1837/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1837/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anand Subhash Bohora, Plot No.18, Welcome Nursery, Old Pandit Colony, Nashik-422 002 Pan : Abrpb9679E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 271(1)(c)

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 wrong claim should be visited with imposition of penalty--Moreover, time for filing a revised return

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Southern Petrochemical Industries Corpn. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1466/CHNY/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2003-04

For Appellant: Mr. R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 35

said return of income was processed by Revenue :- 4 -: u/s 143(1) of the 1961 Act on 12.03.2004. The assessee also filed revised return of income on 30.03.2004 declaring loss of Rs. 298,10,70,500/- . In this revised return of income filed by assessee with Revenue

M/S. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5728/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5727/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 5728/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Sir Shadilal Enterprises Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd., 4A, Hansalaya, 15, Tax, Circle-8(1), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3636D Assessee By : Sh. G. N. Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. G. N. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 37Section 68Section 69C

found recorded. H. On the basis of documents seized from residence of Sh.R.K.Miglani, M/s Balrampur Chinni Mills Limited surrendered Rs. 8.90 cr. in its revised returns as against Rs. 8.70 cr. found recorded. I. Similar incriminating documents were also seized from laptop of Sh Ajay Aggarwal, GM of M/s Radico

M/S. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5727/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 5727/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 5728/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/S Sir Shadilal Enterprises Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ltd., 4A, Hansalaya, 15, Tax, Circle-8(1), Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs3636D Assessee By : Sh. G. N. Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. G. N. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A(2)Section 153CSection 37Section 68Section 69C

found recorded. H. On the basis of documents seized from residence of Sh.R.K.Miglani, M/s Balrampur Chinni Mills Limited surrendered Rs. 8.90 cr. in its revised returns as against Rs. 8.70 cr. found recorded. I. Similar incriminating documents were also seized from laptop of Sh Ajay Aggarwal, GM of M/s Radico

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Bengal Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1590/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)

apex court’s landmark decision in Gooteze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) that such a claim; not accompanied by a revised return before the Assessing Officer, is not liable to be accepted. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant sole substantive grievance. Their lordships hold

Raychem Rpg P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4329/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodraychem Rpg Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Addl.Cit, Range-7(2) Rpg House, 463 Aaykar Bhawan Dr. Annie Besant Road, M.K.Road Worli,Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaacr8032L (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 145Section 145ASection 36(1)(va)Section 43B

return of income for AY 2011-12 on 30/11/2011, declaring total income at Rs.1,76,28,267/-. Subsequently, the assessee has filed a revised return on 19/03/2013 and declared total income at Rs.2,10,24,867/- The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings