← 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

Smt. Jaya Prem Bhatia, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 594/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

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

Smt. Jaya Prem Bhatia, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 593/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

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

Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1284/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

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. 29 ITA Nos. 1284(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Reema Harish Bhatia

Evergreen Sewa Samiti, Bhilwara vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Ajmer

ITA 861/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Aashish Sharma (Adv)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 147

held that an assessee cannot amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee has not laid the claim through the revised return, nor has it made the claim even while filing the return of Income

Evergreen Sewa Samiti, Bhilwara vs. ITO (Exemption), Ajmer

ITA 476/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Aashish Sharma (Adv)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 10(23)Section 11Section 12ASection 147

held that an assessee cannot amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee has not laid the claim through the revised return, nor has it made the claim even while filing the return of Income

Nisha Suman Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 42/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Nisha Suman Jain, The Dcit 24(2), Yash Trading Co., Gr. Floor, C-13, Pratyaksha Kar Bhawan, Jain Estate, Jakharia Road, Bkc, Bandra (E), Malad (W), Vs. Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai - 400064 Pan: Abppj3004M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) Revenue By : Shri D.G. Pansari (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2019

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143Section 2Section 40

assessment year under consideration declaring the total income of Rs. 40,54,180/-. The return was processed u/s 143 (1). Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 30.03.2012, revising total income to Rs. Assessment Year: 2010-11 55,08,360/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5600/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chanda
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

under the normal provisions of the Act and ` 2188,13,41,552, under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 30th March 2009, declaring income of ` 1287,08,04,652, under the normal provisions of the Act and ` 2188,13,41,552, under ... hold land. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had not claimed this deduction either in the original return of income nor in the revised return of income. Accordingly, he disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction. Learned DRP also upheld the decision of the Assessing Officer relying upon the ratio

Shri Banna Lal Jat, Bhilwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, theses appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 476/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)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

Shri Banna Lal Jat, Bhilwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, theses appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 475/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)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

Shri Banna Lal Jat, Bhilwara vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, theses appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 474/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)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

S.F. Engg. Works, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 31(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 826/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. No. 826/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 S.F. Engg. Works.,.................................………………………………….......................................Appellant 22, Gorachand Lane, Kolkata – 700 014. [Pan: Aamfs 4918 D] Ito, Ward 31(2), Kolkata...................………………………………………………………......Respondent Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri S. Banerjee, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Sr. Dr, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 14, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 24, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 9, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2018 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 1,28,416/- Imposed By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Electric Supplier & Contractor. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By It On 17.09.2011 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 4,44,860/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Two Balance Sheets & Trading & Profit & Loss Accounts Were Submitted By The Assessee, One For The Period From 01.04.2010 To 31.05.2010 & The Other For The Period From 01.06.2010 To 31.03.2011. A Consolidated Computation Of Total Income For The Said Two Periods Was Also Submitted By The Assessee Showing A Total Income For The Previous Year Relevant To A.Y. 2011-12

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee did not file any revised return to declare the amount in question as additional income. He contended that it was not an inadvertent mistake of the assessee as claimed

M/S. Aradhana Investment Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 728/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

declaring total income of Rs.4,50,43,750/-. Thereafter a I.T.A. No. 728/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 M/s. Aradhana Investment Limited revised return was filed by the assessee on 11.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.4,66,16,040/-. As disclosed in the said return, interest income of Rs.2

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata vs. Shri Sanjay Dhingra, New Delhi

ITA 234/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Devchand Rajani [2013] 33 taxmann.com 174 (Gujarat) where it had been held that where assessee to buy peace and to avoid protracted litigation filed revised return disclosed disclosing additional income, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) upon assessee on plea that he had furnished inaccurate particulars of income ... conducted at the premises of the assessee-firm, certain incriminating documents were unearthed evidencing concealment of income by the assessee. The assessee filed its revised returns declaring such additional income as had been estimate by the search party. Though the income as per revised returns was accepted in toto

ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata vs. Shri Sidhant Gupta, New Delhi

ITA 232/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Devchand Rajani [2013] 33 taxmann.com 174 (Gujarat) where it had been held that where assessee to buy peace and to avoid protracted litigation filed revised return disclosed disclosing additional income, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) upon assessee on plea that he had furnished inaccurate particulars of income ... conducted at the premises of the assessee-firm, certain incriminating documents were unearthed evidencing concealment of income by the assessee. The assessee filed its revised returns declaring such additional income as had been estimate by the search party. Though the income as per revised returns was accepted in toto

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(3), Kolkata vs. Shri Murarilal Agarwal, Kolkata

ITA 2293/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Devchand Rajani [2013] 33 taxmann.com 174 (Gujarat) where it had been held that where assessee to buy peace and to avoid protracted litigation filed revised return disclosed disclosing additional income, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) upon assessee on plea that he had furnished inaccurate particulars of income ... conducted at the premises of the assessee-firm, certain incriminating documents were unearthed evidencing concealment of income by the assessee. The assessee filed its revised returns declaring such additional income as had been estimate by the search party. Though the income as per revised returns was accepted in toto

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(3), Kolkata vs. Kamalesh Agarwal, Kolkata

ITA 1535/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Devchand Rajani [2013] 33 taxmann.com 174 (Gujarat) where it had been held that where assessee to buy peace and to avoid protracted litigation filed revised return disclosed disclosing additional income, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) upon assessee on plea that he had furnished inaccurate particulars of income ... conducted at the premises of the assessee-firm, certain incriminating documents were unearthed evidencing concealment of income by the assessee. The assessee filed its revised returns declaring such additional income as had been estimate by the search party. Though the income as per revised returns was accepted in toto

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(3), Kolkata vs. Dilip Kumar Modi, Kolkata

ITA 1485/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Devchand Rajani [2013] 33 taxmann.com 174 (Gujarat) where it had been held that where assessee to buy peace and to avoid protracted litigation filed revised return disclosed disclosing additional income, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) upon assessee on plea that he had furnished inaccurate particulars of income ... conducted at the premises of the assessee-firm, certain incriminating documents were unearthed evidencing concealment of income by the assessee. The assessee filed its revised returns declaring such additional income as had been estimate by the search party. Though the income as per revised returns was accepted in toto

DCIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Exide Industries Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1378/KOL/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2002-03 Dcit, Circle-1(1), M/S Exide Industries Ltd. बनाम P-7, Chowringhee Exide House, 59E, / Square, R.No.20, V/S. Chowringhee Road, 7Th Floor, Kolkta-69 Kolkata-700 020 [Pan No.Aaace 6641 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri C.J.Singh,Jcit-Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A. Sinha, Aca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 24-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 24-04-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2002-03 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Kolkata’S Order Dated 27.03.2017 Passed In Case No.123/Cit(A)-22/02-0310-11/Kol, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 251 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue Pleads The Following Substantive Grounds In Its Instant Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting Rs.3.85 Crores Routed Through P&L A/C Under The Head Dealers Incentive Disregarding The Fact That The Assessing Officer'S Addition Has Been Based On Discrepancies, Crystal Clear As It Looks, In Terms Of The Supporting Credit Notes Furnished By The Assessee. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2.04 Crores Routed Through Balance Sheet On Account Of Dealers Incentive – This Is The Area Of Contention Because The

Section 143(3)

payable to its dealers. The company thereafter claimed an additional amount of Rs.2,04,21,638/- as deduction in computation filed along with the revised return. The assessee was asked to explain along with details of such claim. In this respect the assessee’s reply was as under : “the amount ... allowed the amount provided in the accounts amounting to Rs.3,85,00,000/- and the additional claim of Rs.2,04,21,638/- as per revised return was disallowed. 5. Aggrieved by this order of the Assessing Officer the assessee went in appeal before the first appellate authority who enhanced

DCIT Cir 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. City Centre Mall Nashik P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 745/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.745 & 746 /Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15) बिधम/ Acit Cir 6(2)(1) M/S. City Centre Mall Nashik Pvt. Ltd. 5Th R. No. 504, Floor, Vs. Room No.62, Plot No. 8-9, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parekh Mahal, Lady Road, Mumbai-400020. Jamshedji Road, Sakharam Keer Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400016. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccc6422B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen Assessee By: Shri Rajendra Daga/ Abdul Gani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 23.11.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15. Ita. No.745/M/2018:- 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 23.11.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Daga/ Abdul GaniFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen
Section 2Section 24Section 36(1)(iii)

A.Y.2013-14 on 30.09.2013 declaring total income at a loss to the tune of Rs3,55,47,857/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed the revised return of income on 11.03.2015 declaring total loss of Rs.3,55,47,857/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notices

Wartsila India P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed and appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 696/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Wartsila India Private Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known As Income Tax-15(3)(1) “Wartsila India Limited) Aayakar Bhavan 21St Floor, Kesar Solitaire, Mumbai Plot No.5, Sector 19 Palm Beach Road, Sanpada Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw0345D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Wartsila Diesel India Income Tax-15(3)(1) Private Limited 21St Floor, Kesar Solitaire, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai Plot No.5, Sector 19 Palm Beach Road, Sanpada Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan/Gir No.Aaacw0345D (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

wrongly considered by them as taxable income while filing the return of income. It was also pleaded that since the time limit for filing revised return had expired u/s.139(5) of the Act, this revised claim was made during the course of assessment proceedings by way of letter dated 15/02/2013