“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

DCIT Cir. 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sharan Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5867/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Saktijit Dey & N K Pradhanassessment Year 2012-13 Deputy Cit 13(2)(2), M/S. Sharan Hospitality Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. Gr. Floor, Gys Infinity, Vs. Paranjpe B Scheme, Subhash Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai 400 057. Pan Aagcs8608F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Vidisha KalraFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Jain & Shri Bhavik Desai

assessment year under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 30.05.2012 declaring loss of Rs 123,38,13,051/-. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return of income on 25.03.2013. During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticed that, though, assessee had received income from letting out property, however

Uma Developers, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Thane

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 2164/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun kumar Singh

Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80I

date prescribed under section 139(1), even without claiming deduction under the specified provisions, the assessee can claim it subsequently either in a revised return filed under section 139(5) of the Act or by filing a revised computation during the assessment proceeding. In that situation, the condition of section

Kiri Dyes & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1232/AHD/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1232/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri P. B

Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

Officer has not initiated penalty proceedings u/s.27191)9c) on the addition of Rs.1,72,73,488 which was offered by the assessee in the revised return, the learned CIT by invoking power u/s.263 has set aside the assessment for framing the same afresh. Therefore, the question to be decided

M/S Sachedeva & Songs Industries Pvt. Ltd, Amritsar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 657/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. B.R. Baskaran & Sh. N.K.Choudhryassessment Year:2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 271

exclude this capital gain from Computation of income as no sale of Land was made by the assessee.” The assessee also filed a revised return and computation of income by excluding the sale of land from return and furnished a copy of sale deed of Delhi land/property executed

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

In the result we affirm the order of ld CIT(A) id affirmed and

ITA 5378/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Pawan Singh () Hindustan Petroleum The Addl.Cit, Range-1(1), Corporation Ltd., Mumbai 17, Jamashedji Tata Road, V/S Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaach1118B Appellant Respondent

Section 14ASection 37Section 37(1)

Respondent erred in disallowing the impugned legitimate deduction on technical ground that the claim has been lodged during Assessment proceedings and without filing the revised return u/s. 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. CIT(A) erred in confirming the above disallowance disregarding Appellants contentions/submissions based on facts ... Rs.245,80,571/-, for the assessment year 2006-07. Subsequently, on 04-10-2007, the (HPCL ) ITA 5378/Mum/2010 ITA No.5702&5705/Mum/2010 assessee filed a revised return of income revising the income to Nil and income u/s 115JB to Rs.177,33,02,827/-. The assessing officer, in his assessment order passed

Jyothirmoy Yamsani, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Warangal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1519/HYD/2016[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Oct 2019AY 1999-2000

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Paduchuri

Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

income of Rs. 7,57,352/-. Subsequently, she received a notice u/s 148 on 23/02/2005. In response to the above notice, assessee filed a revised return of income on 25/02/2005 declaring total income of Rs. 13,07,352/-. In the revised return of income, assessee has offered ... this assessment is concerned. He submitted that, however, AO has invoked section 271(1)(c) against the income, which was already declared in the revised return of income. He contended that AO cannot invoke section 271(1)(c) for the reason that in the proceedings even though peak credit worked

Sundaram Precision Components Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp Cir6(2), Chennai

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

ITA 225/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 225/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Sundram Precision Components The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., 98-A, 7Th Floor, Auras Corporate Vs. Income Tax, Centre, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Corporate Circle 6(2), Mylapure, Chennai 600 004. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaics5471J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)

sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The assessee filed original return as well as revised return. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee to submit the reconciliation between the two. The assessee submitted that in the original return the assessee had disallowed

S.Sathyaraj, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for both the assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 1220/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1219 & 1220/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2014-15) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Shris. Sathyaraj, No.13A, Brahadambal Road, Non-Corporate Ward-3(1), Nungambakkam, Namakkal. Chennai – 600 034. Pan: Aafps6100C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri J. Chandrasekar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri J. Chandrasekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 72

carried forward and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.7,49,266/- against income from other sources and income from house property in the revised return of income / revised working of the statement of income. The AO has not allowed the assessee’s above claim. Similarly, while making the assessment ... name ‘Silver Screen Movies’, from whom the assessee has not received TDS certificate from them, despite his close follow-up. Therefore, he filed a revised return withdrawing the claim of TDS and he reduced his professional income. The ld.AR submitted that assessee is maintaining books

S.Sathyaraj, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for both the assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 1219/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri J. Chandrasekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 72

Degustibus Hospitality P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 526/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Degustibus Hospitality Dcit-5(1), Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Baktawar Building, Near Sakharbhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aabcd3674P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil A. Desai, ARFor Respondent: Mr. D.G. Pansari, DR

Section 143(3)

assessee has calculated book profits after adjustment of Rs.9,22,65,668/- (in the original return) and Rs.3,58,07,722/- (in the revised return) to the net profit shown in the P&L account for the financial year (FY) 2012-13, as per Explanation-1 of sub-section

Anticlock Films Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Circle-16(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4967/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Asifa KhanFor Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald

Section 143(3)

explanation as to how while filing return of income on 30/09/2008, there was loss of Rs.1,39,09,690/- and later on while filing revised return on 26/02/2010 how this loss was converted into more loss of Rs.3,41,30,637/-. Since there is no proper explanation and assessee

Anticlock Films Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Circle-16(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4966/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Asifa KhanFor Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald

Section 143(3)

Anticlock Films Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Circle-16(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4965/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Ms. Asifa KhanFor Respondent: Shri S. Michael Jerald

Section 143(3)

Mohd Farooq Sarang, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1177/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1177/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Mohd. Farooq Sarang Dcit–Central Circle-36 बनाम/ Flat No.302, Shabnam Apt. Mumbai. 33, S.V. Road, Andheri (W) Vs. Mumbai-400 058. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafps-3609-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Piyush Chhajed-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 26/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 04/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld.DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had already filed the revised claims alongwith Computation of Income and Revised Return during the course of assessment and therefore should have been allowed as laid down by various judicial authorities.” We have heard and considered rival ... return for AY 2010-11 expires on 31/03/2012. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 18/03/2013 furnished a revised return at Rs.17.28 Lacs which was rejected by learned AO since the original return was a belated return and also, the time limit for filing

Latha C.Mohan, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3046/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Respondent: Shri. P. Muthushankar, JCIT

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

finding that the assessee understated her turnover and concealed her income. Subsequently, the A O issued notice u/s. 148, the assessee filed a revised return admitting a total income of Rs. 56,63,140/-, which was scrutinised and accepted in the re-assessment, resulting an additional demand. While completing ... only through the survey, this concealment was brought on record and when the notice u/s. 148 was issued, the assessee filed a revised return accommodating :-3-: the findings of the survey. Therefore, the AO levied the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. Harish Bagla, Kolkata

In the result, the I.T. Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2303/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) I.T.A. No. 2302/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & I.T.A. No. 2303/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc-2(1), Kolkata…………….................………..…….......Appellant Vs. Harish Bagla…………………………......................................................................................…………Respondent Jaisalmer Building 6, Ashoka Road Kolkata – 700 027 [Pan : Abppb 7430 D] Appearances By: Shri D.S. Damle, Fca & Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit, D/R Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 8Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 1St , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A

filed his return of income for the Assessment Year on 30/07/2013 disclosing total income of Rs.10,25,32,950/-. Later the assessee filed a revised return of income on 26/05/2014 declaring total income of Rs.13,78,43,680/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act, was conducted ... 30/03/2015, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.13,78,48,400/-, i.e., the income declared by the assessee in the revised return of income. At para 4 of his order, the Assessing Officer observed as follows:- “4. Considering the return of income filed, the documents and explanations filed

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata vs. Harish Bagla, Kolkata

In the result, the I.T. Appeal in ITA No

ITA 2302/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A

Prakash K. Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(1), Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4595/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 131Section 246ASection 246A(1)Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

peace of mind, he is offering the said amount to tax. The assessee presents the following case laws where Assessee had filed revised return after search to buy peace of mind. CIT v/s Suresh Chandra Mittal CIT v/s Amalendu Paul CIT v/s Harsh Kumar The Assessee in the present case ... case. The order of the learned CIT( appeals) is not sustainable on this account itself. 7. Furthermore I hold that the assessee has filed revised return before the assessing officer. The assessing officer despite noting the revised return and assessee's offer of the amount for taxation has held that

Shri Pranav Dhanibhai Patel, Surat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 152/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.152/Srt/2018: "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Pranav Dhanibhai Patel, V Dcit, Central Circle-4, Surat. 2, Tirupati Society, Ajrmar Chowk, . B/H. Navyug College, Surat. [Pan: Adipp 5397 G] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54B

sold a plot at Rs.1,46,19,000/- while jantri value of the land was Rs.3,21,63,265/-. The assessee filed revised return of income on 31.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.40,43,270/-. The AO held that the transactions were never disclosed by the appellant voluntariy and only ... amount of consideration shown in agreement. Hence, long-term capital gain was offered as per provision of section 50C of the Act. In the revised return of income date 31.12.2014 the assessee has shown capital gains in original return as it has claimed exemption under section

Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

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

ITA 1032/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahla (JCIT)

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

153C cannot be interpreted to be a further innings for the AO and/or assessee beyond provisions of Sections 139 (return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that