“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

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 1031/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

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

Mohan Lal Swarankar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/JPR/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)

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

Radiology. The assessee filed his return of income on 31st October, 2002 declaring a loss of Rs. 80,90,669/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income declaring loss of Rs. 29,77,789/-. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed on 23rd March, 2005 at a loss

Bhavesh Pravinchandra Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 816/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bhaveshpravinchandrasheth Assistant Commissioner Of Sheth House, Gr. Floor, Vs. Income Tax- 12(2), Sandhurst Bridge, Room No. 123A, Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400007 Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan No. Aavps0801N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Biren Gubhawala, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Biren Gubhawala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Assessing Officer has erred in computing the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 without considering the facts that revised return declaring higher income was filed on commencement of assessment proceedings but before any hearing or the assessment completion. The A.O. Bhavesh Pravinchandra Sheth ... case and in law, the A.O. has erred in imposing penalty on concealed income whereas there was no tax payable while filing revised return therefore there was no loss to exchequer as TDS on the increased income was also not claimed in original return. The learned CIT(A) has failed

Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 2495/MUM/2009[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodtata Chemicals Limited Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Bombay House, 24, 384, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Homi Mody, Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 001 Pan – Aaact4059M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Atul Suraiya, A.Rs Respondent By: Shri R. Manjunatha Swami, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swami, CIT D.R

Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(2)Section 263

right to make the claim during the course of assessment. Note 5 : 80IA claim for Haldia Plant will be claimed by filing a revised return or during the course of assessment proceedings.” Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 20.04.2005, declaring its total income ... revised return of income, the assesse claimed a refund of Rs. 3,44,68,589/-. Once again, the assessee had in its revised return raised a claim for deduction under Sec. 80IA (in principle), subject to the qualifying „notes‟ as were earlier mentioned in its „original‟ return of income

M/S Sai Concrete Pavers Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam vs. The DCIT, Circle - 4(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 572/VIZ/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.572/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/S Sai Concrete Pavers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of D.No.49-58-2, Green Park Road Income Tax Akkayyapalem Circle-4(1) Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aagcs 4329F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Kjd Srinivas, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Smt Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri KJD Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Smt Suman Malik, DR

Section 2(22)(e)

short ‘Act’). In the instant case, the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.2,39,176/- on 30.09.2008. Subsequently filed revised return of income declaring total income of Rs.23,91,760/- on 27.10.2008. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee had given

Buildmate Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 266/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Sh. Nilanjan Dey, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 originally on 30.9.2015 admitting income of Rs.2,57,75,938/-. Later, the assessee filed its revised return of income on 18.4.2016 admitting the same income. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and during the assessment proceedings ... Buildmate Projects P Ltd., Hyd. Subsequently rectification order u/s 154 of the Act was also passed giving credit for TDS claimed in the revised return of the assessee. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who dismissed assessee’s appeal only

K Mohan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Cw 22(1), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1141/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1141/Chny/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs The Acit, Shri K. Mohan, No.2, Vanila Arasu St, West Tambaram, Non-Corporate Ward 22(1), Chennai -45 Chennai – 600 045

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 131Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

income for the assessment year 2008-09 at Rs.97,38,400/-. Subsequently, the AO issued a notice U/s.148 on 25.03.2015. The assessee filed a revised return on 15.07.2015, admitting a total income of Rs.97,38,400/- with all taxes duly paid. The AO accepted the returned income in the reassessment ... original return and he levied the penalty on the taxes on Rs.96,38,000/-, i.e., on the total income admitted in the revised return which included the total income of Rs.12,91,169/- admitted in the original return income also. 4. Per contra, the ld.DR invited to the relevant portion

Cole Parmer India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly grounds are allowed

ITA 957/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 957/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal

Section 143(2)Section 40

that assessee filed its return of income on 25-11-2014 declaring total income of Rs. 5,43,26,690/-. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return of income on 10.03.15 declaring the same income as per original return of income. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s.143

Code Engineers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Range 8, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 622/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Code Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3), Aaykar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, B-204, Sai Sangam, Plot No. 85, Sector 152, Cbd Belapur, Vs. M. K. Road, Churchgate, Navi Mumbai-400 614 Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K. Gajarathi &For Respondent: Shri A. M. Mittal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 269SSection 27Section 271DSection 43B

impugned order, holding as follows: 6.5.2. I find that the appellant had filed an additional sum of Rs. 1,14,50,000/- in the revised return of income. The AO completed the assessment based on the 3 Code Engineers Pvt. Ltd. revised income. The mere fact that

Crompton Greaves Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 5390/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Cg House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 030 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Revenue) : (Assessee) & M/S. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Asst. Cit-6(2)(1) 6Th Floor, Cg House, R. No.504/563-C, 5Th Floor, Vs. Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc 2089 A (Assessee) : (Revenue) : Shri A. M. Mittal Revenue By Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi

Section 14(1)Section 14ASection 35

assessment stage without revising the return. In that case, the assessee had raised a claim through letter during the assessment proceedings without filing a revised return. The Assessing Officer did not entertain the same. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the order of the Assessing Officer, but the Tribunal conformed ... Court categorically held that in the Act, there is no provision to amend the original return of income through an application without filing a revised return during the course of assessment proceedings. [Para 11] in the instant case, the Assessing Officer had passed an order following the judgment

ACIT 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Crompton Greaves Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 5295/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi

Section 14(1)Section 14ASection 35

Shri Gordhanlal Vani (Deceased), Ratlam vs. ACIT, Ratlam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 492/IND/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Babulal Vani Acit Prop. M/S. Babulal Ramlal Ratlam बनाम/ Vani Vs. 50, Laxmiganj, Jobat, Dist. Jhabua (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aazpv7706M Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Gordhanlal Vani Acit (Deceased) Ratlam बनाम/ Prop. M/S. Gordhanlal Vs. Ramlal Vani (Through Son & Legal Heir Shri Yogendra Vani) 50, Laxmiganj, Jobat, Dist. Jhabha (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aazpv7706M

Section 133ASection 143(3)

place during the previous year relevant to the preceding assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2004- 05. After realizing such factual situation, the appellant filed his revised return of income for A.Y. 2004-05. In the [ITA Nos.491&492/Ind/2018] [Shri Babulal Vani, Jhabua] revised return of income the appellant had shown taxable

Shri Babulal Vani, Jhabua vs. ACIT, Ratlam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 491/IND/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Section 133ASection 143(3)

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Baroda vs. M/S. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2260/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 27.09.2007. Further, the assessee has also filed revised return on 30.03.2008, declaring total income of Rs. (-) 40,98,79,270/- under normal provisions and book profit u/s. 115JB of Rs. 83,47,52,785/-. 3. Subsequently, notice

DCIT, Circle-10(1) vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corp. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4432/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

Return, for this Assessment Year 2000-01 interest income on bank deposits at Rs. 59,57,94,430/- was declared. Subsequently, a revised return was filed showing nil income. In the revised return after claiming deduction of expenses for earning of interest income, the income was worked

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1153/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

DCIT, Circle-10(1) vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4433/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (Hpvp Unit) Formerly Known As Bharat Heavy Plate and Vessels Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 129/VIZ/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.128 & 129/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा/Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively) M/S Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of (Hpvp) Unit Income Tax Formerly Known As Bharat Heavy Range-3 Plate & Vessels Ltd. Visakhapatnam D.No.10-3, Administrative Building Natayyapalem, Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aaacb7076N] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri I Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri V.Appala Raju, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2019 25.09.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.Appala Raju, DR

during the assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has claimed the depreciation on EDP equipment to the tune of Rs.48,46,819/- in the revised return. The AO called for the information and found from the details filed by the assessee that the ownership on the equipment was not transferred ... case, there was genuine omission in the return filed by the assessee, remedial action is available in the Income Tax Act to file the revised return or to approach the Ld.CIT u/s 264 of the Act. Since no addition was made by the AO in the 8 I.T.A. No.128 & 129/Viz/2019

Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (Hpvp Unit) Formerly Known As Bharat Heavy Plate and Vessels Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-3, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 128/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri I Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Shri V.Appala Raju, DR

Shri Sohan Nath, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 8/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahla (JCIT)

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

typographical mistake only committed while filing the original return of income showing wrong agricultural income. The authorities below also erred in not considering the revised return showing the correct agricultural income and/or the information contained therein AO. The addition so made and confirmed by the Id. CIT(A) is being ... declaring income from truck hiring business and agricultural income but no income was declared from liquor business. During the assessment year, the assessee filed revised return of income on 30/08/2015 declaring total income of Rs. 6,38,900/- which includes income from liquor business of Rs. 4,68,895/-. Since