“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Shri Kamal Sethia, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1498/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B. K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

remuneration and interest from these firms and interest from bank during this year totaling to Rs. 23,74,227/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed his revised return of income u/s 139(5) on 19.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 3,85,78,660/- which includes undisclosed income ... Kamal Sethia, Jaipur 27.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 3,85,78,660/- which is at the same figure as per the revised return filed earlier on 19.03.2015. The Assessment u/s 143(3) read with section 153A was completed on 24.11.2016 at assessed income

Supermax Personal Care P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT(Ltu_)1, Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1840/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Assessee's total income at INR 52,02,32,300 as against the returned income of INR 18,35,59,790 disclosed in the revised return filed. Rejection of functional and economic analysis undertaken by Appellant 3. erred rejecting the functional and economic analysis undertaken by the Assessee in accordance

Greaves Cotton Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal

ITA 7424/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singhgreaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Greaves Cotton Ltd. Acit Circle-6(3), Industry Manor, Appasaheb Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400025. Pan: Aaacg2062M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Arati Vissanji (Advocate) Respondent By : Shri Abbi Rama Karthikey (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Smt. Arati Vissanji (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Abbi Rama Karthikey (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(9)

passed on 26/12/2008 after the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) i.e. on 31.3.2008 and hence the Appellant could not make their claim in revised return. 13. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that non allowance of deduction of reversal of expenditure would result in double taxation, firstly ... passed on 26/12/2008 after the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) i.e. on 31.3.2008 and hence the Appellant could not make their claim in revised return. Ground H INTEREST U/S 234C - Rs.l,13,850/- 15. As decided by the Bombay High Court in the case of Snocem India

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT., Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 873/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Aparna Agarwal, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

Government company originally filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 28.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.557,66,01,050/- followed by revised return on 04.02.2012 without changing the figure of total income and again on 10.09.2012, a revised return declaring total income at Rs.555

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The CIT(A), A'Bad-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2951/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Aparna Agarwal, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1369/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Aparna Agarwal, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80I

Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Passing The Order.

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Lal Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that the assessee in the revised return of income declared a loss of Rs. 13,08,21,562/- after claiming inter alia advertisement 5 Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Jaipur. expenditure

Manish Goyal, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 653/JPR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)

Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

enable the reduction of the taxable "income of the assessee. It was further observed that the question of concealment of income and whether the revised return was filed voluntarily or not is a question of fact to be examined and decided upon the fact and circumstances of each case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Essar Power Transmission Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 398/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 397/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R

income from other sources and after setting off same against business loss, claimed carry forward of remaining loss. Later on, it filed a revised return claiming that interest and finance charges along with other production expenses will have to be capitalised and therefore, the interest income should go to reduce ... which would ultimately be capitalised and as such, the interest income was not exigible to tax. However, the claim of the assessee in the revised return was not accepted by the AO and the interest income was charged to tax as Income from Other Sources. While deciding this issue

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Essar Power Gujarat Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 397/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 397/Mum/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R

Kishor Hira Bhandari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 30(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 370/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodshri Kishore Hira Bhandari I.T.O 30(2)(1) Kishore Bhandari Chawl, Mumbai Behind Mamta Medical Store, Vs. Marve Road, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400064

For Appellant: Shri Anil Thakrar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 54

entertain a claim for deduction/relief raised by the assessee, except for those raised either in his original return of income or through a revised return. However, we are of the considered view that as observed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Pruthvi

Snc Lavalin Engineering India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 11(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1067/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh, D.R

Section 234BSection 92C(3)Section 92D

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in mentioning 'Business Income (as per revised return of income)' as Rs. 3,19,51,113 as against 'Income from Business and Profession' of Rs. 1,38,70,575, as per revised ROI, thereby erroneously

Sh. Param Paul Singh, Chandigarh vs. DCIT (Intl. Taxation), Circle, Chandigarh

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 198/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini, Vice- & Shri S.S.Godara, Judicialmember Assessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shr Manjit Singh, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 54Section 69

decision in Goetz India Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) to conclude that the assessee’s deduction claim in absence of revised return or that filed in response to sec. 148 notice; could not be accepted. He therefore disallowed / added the impugned deduction ... Supreme Court in Goetze India Pvt. Ltd. clearly states that the A.O. can entertain any claim for deduction or exemption only though the revised return and not through any other document or letter. In the present case the assessee has not filed any return and therefore the only claim

Greenland Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 690/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271

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