← 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

Navkar Realtors, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 19(3), Mumbai

ITA 2686/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)

disallowance made by A.O. i.e. the total expenses of Rs.24,96,647/- claimed against the additional income disclosed by the appellant in the revised return on income.” The grounds raised by the assessee in AY 2011-12 reads as under: - [Al Grounds of Appeal: 1) In the facts ... against returned income of Rs.23.17 Lacs filed by the assessee on 21/09/2010 which was later on revised to Rs.83.39 Lacs on 28/09/2011. The revised return was filed subsequent to survey operations u/s 133A being carried out by the revenue at assessee’s premises on 15/02/2011. 2.2 During assessment proceedings

Value First Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-26(1), New Delhi

ITA 487/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40Section 72ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

assessee filed its original return of income under section 1391 of the Act on 29.11.2013 declaring an income of Rs. 54,65,300/- and revised return showing income of Rs. 54,65,300 was electronically filed on 19.12.2014. The return of Income was revised to claim the additional amount

M/S Value First Digital Media Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4389/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40Section 72ASection 9Section 9(1)(vi)

assessee filed its original return of income under section 1391 of the Act on 29.11.2013 declaring an income of Rs. 54,65,300/- and revised return showing income of Rs. 54,65,300 was electronically filed on 19.12.2014. The return of Income was revised to claim the additional amount

DCIT, Kollam vs. M/S Baby Marine International, Kollam

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

ITA 227/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Shanthom BoseFor Respondent: Sri.Iype Mathew
Section 288(2)Section 44A

Accountant to certify the figures as true and correct. 3. The CIT(A) ought to have noticed that the assessee did not file any revised return with revised auditor's report to rectify mistakes within the time limit prescribed as per the Act. 3 M./s.Baby Marine International ... claim 90,620 kg. shrimps as on 31.03.2011 Difference in quantity of stock excess 6,48,778 kg. Qty disclosed between original return and revised return Quantity of Shrimp Production quantity of shrimp as per 90,63,010 kg. original return Actual quantity of production

ACIT (OSD) Corporate Range 1, Chennai vs. Dorma India P. Ltd., Chennai

In the result appeal filed by

ITA 1666/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. N.V.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 32

companies, mode and details of payment of purchase consideration , whether the said depreciation on goodwill was claimed in original return of income and/or in revised return of income filed by assessee with Revenue and whether assessee can claim depreciation on goodwill during assessment proceedings without filing the said claim ... made claim for depreciation on goodwill in the return of income filed with Revenue on 14.10.2010 , nor the said claim was made in revised return of income filed by assessee with Revenue on 14.02.2012 and AO was of the view that such a claim cannot be made otherwise than

ACIT (OSD) Corporate Range 1, Chennai vs. Dorma India P. Ltd., Chennai

In the result appeal filed by

ITA 1665/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. N.V.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 32

companies, mode and details of payment of purchase consideration , whether the said depreciation on goodwill was claimed in original return of income and/or in revised return of income filed by assessee with Revenue and whether assessee can claim depreciation on goodwill during assessment proceedings without filing the said claim ... made claim for depreciation on goodwill in the return of income filed with Revenue on 14.10.2010 , nor the said claim was made in revised return of income filed by assessee with Revenue on 14.02.2012 and AO was of the view that such a claim cannot be made otherwise than

ACIT (OSD) Corporate Range 1, Chennai vs. Dorma India P. Ltd., Chennai

In the result appeal filed by

ITA 1664/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. N.V.Balaji, AdvFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 32

companies, mode and details of payment of purchase consideration , whether the said depreciation on goodwill was claimed in original return of income and/or in revised return of income filed by assessee with Revenue and whether assessee can claim depreciation on goodwill during assessment proceedings without filing the said claim ... made claim for depreciation on goodwill in the return of income filed with Revenue on 14.10.2010 , nor the said claim was made in revised return of income filed by assessee with Revenue on 14.02.2012 and AO was of the view that such a claim cannot be made otherwise than

Addison & Company Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.517/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

therefore, no penalty should be levied. However, the :- 3 -: AO rejected the above explanation by holding that the appellant- company had not filed any revised return of income and the appellant had intentionally made excess claim of lease rentals but, for the scrutiny proceedings, the excess claim would not have

ACIT Cir 7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Pristine Developers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6553/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Malav ShethFor Respondent: Kumari Padmapani Bora
Section 24Section 44A

fact that the depreciation claimed in the original return of income filed for AY 2009-2010 and AY 2010-11 was withdrawn in the revised return of income filed subsequently.” 2. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the grounds raised in Revenue‟s appeal ... under: “2.3…………….The appellant filed original return of income declaring total business income at Rs. 4,54,26,491/-. Thereafter, the appellant filed revised return of income declaring rental income and service charges income under the head „income from house property‟ showing loss

M/S Mann & Hummel Filter Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 466/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Mann & Hummel Filter Private Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 2Nd Floor, Prasad Enclave, Circle 4(1)(2), 118, 119 Industrial Suburb, Bangalore. 2Nd Stage, 5Th Main, Yeshwantpura, Bangalore-560 022 Pan Aaecm4056D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Return of Income for Assessment Year 2011-12 on 28.09.2011 with a total loss of Rs.16,57,89,697. Subsequently, the assessee company filed Revised Return of Income with a total loss of Rs.15,43,98,328. The case was selected for scrutiny and Notice under Section

ACIT Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. Lokvir Kapoor, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1964/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishilokvir Kapoor, Vs. Acit, C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi Circle-19(2), Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Lokvir Kapoor, Circle-19(2), C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi New Delhi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Deepali Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143Section 54FSection 56Section 56(2)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee ‗held such property‘. Even otherwise according to the learned assessing officer, as assessee filed a mere revised computation of capital gain, without revising return of income u/s 139 (5) of the act, therefore , it is not admissible. Accordingly he computed the long-term capital gain by taking the cost ... disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the A ITA 261/2002 Page 4 of 6 the return without filing a revised return. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that the decision

Lokvir Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 1532/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishilokvir Kapoor, Vs. Acit, C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi Circle-19(2), Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vs. Lokvir Kapoor, Circle-19(2), C-8, Ground Floor, Pashimi New Delhi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Ajlpk0736H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Deepali Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143Section 54FSection 56Section 56(2)(iii)Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee ‗held such property‘. Even otherwise according to the learned assessing officer, as assessee filed a mere revised computation of capital gain, without revising return of income u/s 139 (5) of the act, therefore , it is not admissible. Accordingly he computed the long-term capital gain by taking the cost ... disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the A ITA 261/2002 Page 4 of 6 the return without filing a revised return. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that the decision

Cambridge Technology Enterprises Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 208/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. P. Murali Mohana Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, CIT, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

Rs.48,37,09,885/- under the provisions of Sec.115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for short). Subsequently, the assessee filed its revised return of income on ITA No.208/Hyd./2018 AY 2013-14 M/s Cambridge Technology Enterprises Ltd. 28.3.2016, admitting total loss of Rs.18 ... credit of the amalgamating company i.e. M/s Cambridge Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (‘CTIPL’ for short) and since the AO has accepted the revised return of income taking into consideration the aggregate income of the amalgamated company i.e. M/s Cambridge Tech. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (CTEPL for short), entire TDS credit

The DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal vs. M/S. Indore Education and Service Society, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is

ITA 468/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit M/S. Indore Education & (Exemption) Service Society बनाम/ Bhopal 2Nd Floor, Income Tax Office Vs. Metro Walk Building E-5, Arera Colony Near Bittan Market Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaati3186K

Section 10Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)

matter of Law that there is a bar for the assessing authority to entertain the claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. The above views have been taken by Honourable Allahabad High court in the case of Universal subscription Agency (P) Ltd V JCIT reported

Dinesh Kumar, Sonepat vs. ITO, Sonepat

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

ITA 1830/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1830/Del/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Dinesh Kumar, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward No.2, Sonepat. S/O. Shri Harphool Singh, . Village Chitana Distt., Sonepat. [Pan: Behpk 2605 D] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

assessment year under appeal in his bank account with OBC either through cash or cheque. The assessee has declared in the revised return gross receipt at Rs.36,11,270/- whereas in the original return, these receipts were at Rs.13,16,450/-. Notice u/s.147 was issued on 25.05.2012 calling ... Return of Income from the assessee in response to which a revised Return of income was filed on 28.10.2013 thereafter notice u/s.143(2) was issued. The AO noticed that the assessee has shown income at Rs.42,000/- u/s.44AE of the Act from plying one truck. Besides this, the assessee

The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 972/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Nov 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.R. Soni, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

assessee and granting relief on the issues not raised at the time of filing original return of income or by way of revised return at a subsequent stage is justified in law or not. 7. The first issue framed above appears quite simple as we see. While adjudicating the issue ... granting relief on the disallowance (suo moto made by the assessee) beyond the return of income and in the absence of any formal revised return. The CIT(A) has discussed this aspect in very great detail in para 2.5 to 2.28 of its order. We are not inclined to reiterate

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ge Money Financial Services Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3510/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri R.K.Pandaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3379/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Sh.Aarush Nagpal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153

same is admitted for adjudication. 5. Briefly in the facts of the case the assessee had filed return of income on 30.09.2010. Thereafter, revised return of income was filed on 30.03.2012. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3379/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri R.K.Pandaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3379/Del/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Sh.Aarush Nagpal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153

same is admitted for adjudication. 5. Briefly in the facts of the case the assessee had filed return of income on 30.09.2010. Thereafter, revised return of income was filed on 30.03.2012. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued

DCIT Cen Cir 8(4), Mumbai vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai

In the results, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3991/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramesh C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3991/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3992/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3993/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 3994/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Phoenix Mills Ltd. Income Tax, 462, Senapati Bapat Vs. Central Circle-8(4), Marg, Lower Parel, 6Th Floor, Room No. 658, Mumbai-400013. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp 3325 J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Awungshi Gimson (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(1)(c)Section 36

assessee has filed the return of income on 29/09/2012 declaring total income of Rs. 1,08,62,86,443/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed its revised return of income on 31/10/2014 declaring the same income of Rs. 1,08,62,86,443/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and he assessment

Empee Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1504/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1504/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09

For Appellant: Shri M. Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40

filed its return of income for the assessment year 2008-09 on 30.09.2008 admitting ₹.5,47,26,083/-. 2 Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 25.03.2010 admitting NIL income and paid tax on book profit under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act [“Act” in short]. After considering