“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

Manojkumar Natvarlal Bhatt, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward-4(1)(4), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 200/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Mukund K. Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 17(2)(vii)

total income at ₹13,75,890 which was subsequently revised dated 30th December 2014 declaring total income at ₹11,64,330.00 only. However, the revised return was not accepted by the Revenue for the reason that there is no provision under the Act to revise the belated return. As such ... assessee in the revised return claimed a deduction of ₹3,11,560.00 on account of the contribution made by the employer towards the superannuation fund under section 17(2)(vii) of the Act. 2.1 However, the AO found that the employer of the assessee has contributed

Power Welfare Organisation, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 3(2), Gurgaon

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

ITA 459/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15

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

supra) pronounced. 02.01.2015 Return of income filed by the appellant for AY 2014-15. 3 29.09.2015 Notice u/s 143(2) issued by AO. 05.10.2015 Revised return filed by the appellant and taxes paid. From the aforesaid chronology of events it is evident that return of income was filed

Narayan Ramchandra Rathi, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(1), Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-2015

ITA 4811/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Narayan Ramchandra Rathi, The Ito-3(1), Ab-14, Nandanvan Indl. Estate, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Lbs Marg, Wagle Indl. Estate, Road No. 16-Z, Wagle Indl. Estate, Teen Hath Naka, Vs. Thane - 400604 Thane (West)- 400604 Pan: Abnpr5130Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rajore Satish Chandra Ramsevak (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/08/2019

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajore Satish Chandra Ramsevak

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 68

Companies. Investigation revealed that in Kolkata some of the beneficiaries, who had obtained bogus entries voluntarily surrendered for taxation and some of them filed revised return. As per the AO, the assessee in the present case is one of the beneficiaries, who has obtained bogus entry

Kabeer Khan Cold Storage Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO-5(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by assessee are rejected

ITA 4484/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhshri Kabeer Khan Income Tax Officer 5(2)(2) Cold Storage Pvt Ltd. 33, Mumbai Vs. Jasmine Villa, Opposite, Ymca Ground , Mumbai-400008. Pan: Aaeck3490K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri B. Srinivas Cit-Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 254(1)Section 68

filed its return of income on 12th September 2012, declaring total income of Rs. nil and current year loss of ₹ 5640/–. Thereafter, assessee filed revised return on 31st March 2014, declaring Nil income and loss of current year of ₹ 9475/-. The assessment was completed on 30th March 2015 determining total

Ramaesh K. Nakrani, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 39 (New : Cent. Cir. 6(4)), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 663/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanramesh Nakrani Dcit, Central Circle-39, Flat No.1, Plot No. 16, [New: Central Circle-6(4)] Sector-8A, C.B.D. Vs. Air Building, Nariman Point Navi Mumbai – 400614 Mumbai

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral D. Sejpal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, D.R

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

return of income for A.Y. 2009-10 on 13.01.2010, declaring his total income at Rs. 2,97,062/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 25.01.2010 declaring his total income at Rs. 1,02,97,062/-. Assessment under Sec. 143(3) was completed on 29.12.2010 determining ... which was not originally declared in the books of accounts was declared in the statement recorded u/s132(4) and also thereafter declared in the revised return.” 11. We have given a thoughtful consideration and are of the considered view that the assessee even in the course of the „set aside

ACIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. India First Life Insurance Co.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 1912/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1912/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Acit-12(2)(2) बिधम/ M/S. India First Life 12(2)(2), Room No.145, 1St Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 301, B-Wing, The Qube, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Infinity Park, Dindhosi, Film 400020. City Road, Malad (E), Mumbai-400097. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb6215G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Ketan Ved/Ninad Patade सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.12.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved/Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (DR)

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 44

assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2013 declaring net loss to the tune of Rs.64,16,97,890/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 02.08.2014 revising the loss at Rs.57,76,85,377/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thereafter ... case and the appellant’s submissions. Perusal of the assessment order shows that the AO has mentioned therein that the appellant had filed revised return of income on 02.08.2014. The appellant had also submitted copy of the same wherein claim u/s 10(23AAB) was made. The AO was, therefore

The Indian Hume Pipe Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle - 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7328/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7328/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hume Pipe Acit, Cc-3(3) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Company Ltd. Vs. Air India Bldg, Nariman Construction House, 2Nd Point, Mumbai-400021. Floor, Walchand Hirachand Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai400001. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact4063D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri H. P. Mahajani (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Awungshi Gimson (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/08/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.11.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “ On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Claim Of Deduction, Amounting To Rs.22,02,93,000/- U/S 80Ia Of The I.T. Act, 1961, Relying Upon The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Itat Mumbai For I.T. Asst. Years 2004-05 To 2010-11, For The Reasons Mentioned In The Order. 2. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance U/S 80Ia Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Treating The Appellant As Works Contractor & Not As Developer For The Reasons Mentioned In The Order.

For Appellant: Shri H. P. Mahajani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimson (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 80I

income on 28.11.2014 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.36,64,10,280/- relevant to the A.Y. 2014-15. Thereafter, assessee filed the revised return of income on 30.03.2016 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.14,59,38,910/-. The assessee filed a copy of Tax Audit Report

DCIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai vs. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 2968/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar VoraFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumar (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

filed its return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.1,20,38,37,694/-. Thereafter the assessee filed the revised return of income on 19.11.2010 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.1,21,34,17,724/-. The assessee company was engaged in the business

ACIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Power Generation Co.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4720/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandcit-10(1) M/S Maharashtra State Power 455, 4Th Floor, Generation Co. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. G-9, Prakash Gad, Mumbai -400 020 Vs. Anant Kanekar Marg, Station Road, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051

For Appellant: Shri Manjunath Swami, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth, A.R

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

income after claiming „set off‟ of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs.623,47,43,689/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income declaring Nil income after claiming “set off” of brought forward losses amounting to Rs.288,90,26,701/-. The return of income filed ... Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings it was observed by the A.O that in the revised return of income of the assessee company a „note‟ had been posted below the statement of computation of income, which read as under : “Reason for revising

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ansal Urban Condominium Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Department dismissed

ITA 6567/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri T.S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri Satyam Setti, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 139(5)

whereas the actual amount of the expenditure is only Rs.17,18,860/-. The A.O. however do not accept the claim of assessee because no revised return have been filed under section 139(5) of the I.T. Act. The A.O. relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... view that no interference is called for in the matter. The Ld. D.R. relied upon Order of the A.O. and submitted that since no revised return was filed before A.O, therefore, claim of excluding expenses should not have been allowed. 5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee

Earth Craft Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty , ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

served on the assessee after due approval of the Addl. CIT, Range-1. In response to notice, the assessee filed revised return on 5.6.2017 and requested to intimate the reason for reopening the assessment. The Assessing Officer vide his letter dated 9.6.2017 furnished the reasons for reopening of assessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax CC-3(4), Central Range-3, Mumbai vs. Shri Kamal Khetan, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4767/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhdcit Cc - 3(4) , Shri Kamal Khetan, Central Range-3, Room No. 78, Khetan Bhavan, J.B. Nagar, Vs. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India Andheri (East), Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400005. Mumbai-400021 Pan: Aahpk4505D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr Dr) Respondent By : Shri Rishabh Shah (Ar)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr DR)For Respondent: Shri Rishabh Shah (AR)

Section 251(1)Section 254(1)Section 94(7)

deduction can be made in course of assessment proceeding other than made in the return of income and that the assessee has not filed revised return. On appeal before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the action of Assessing Officer was reversed. The ld Commissioner (Appeals) directed the assessing officer to verify ... Officer has not disputed the merit of the claim, however, the claim was not allowed as the same was not made by way of revised return of income. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Commissioner (Appeals), the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. 3. We have considered

Bonifacio D'Souza, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-30(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4819/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Haridas Bhat, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, DR

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)(vi)

souza of income. The revised computation of income submitted during the course of assessment proceedings cannot be accepted or taken cognizance of as no revised return has been filed by the assessee u/s 139(5) of the Act. Further, the computation of long term capital gain furnished is not voluntary

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ashish Dhawan, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Department dismissed

ITA 1142/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mangal &For Respondent: Shri Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 74

relief”.” 5. We have heard the Ld. D.R. The Ld. D.R. submitted that A.O. could not have allow the claim of assessee because no revised return is filed and relied Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze 5 ITA.No.1142/Del./2016 Shri Ashish Dhawan, New Delhi ... loss as claimed. The grievance of the Revenue has been that assessee has not made the claim on the return of income and no revised return have been filed. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT, Delhi-II vs. Jai Parabolic Springs