← 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

Narendra Kumar Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centraql Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 12/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Narendra Kumar Singh, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O- Vivek Bansal, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, B-3/4, Safdarjung Enclave, Central Circle-15, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Akmps8087M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Shri I.P. Bansal & Vivek Bansal, Advocates Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 50CSection 50C(1)Section 50C(2)(a)

which the gain on properties was falling, the assessee could have revised the return of income within the stipulated period. The assessee not filed revised return of income, but even did not make this claim either before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A). 4.3 In the instant

M/S Radic Khaitan Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4355/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2005-06]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 245Section 245D(4)

said that there was true and fair disclosure. It was noted here that unlike Section 139 of the Act which provides for filing of revised return, there is no provision for revision of an application made in terms of Section 245C. That shows clear legislative intent that the applicant

Nayab International, Vadodara vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 1068/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Smiti Samant, Sr.DR
Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 147Section 1OSection 234BSection 234CSection 271

authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The assessee in the instant case file revised return of income dated 26-10-2010 along with the report in form 56F dated 25-09-2010 claiming the Page 3 of 9 Asstt. Year ... deduction under section 10A of the Act for Rs. 25,15,494.00 only. As the assessee filed the report in form 56F in the revised return of income, accordingly the AO was of the view that there was no report filed by the assessee in form 56F along with

DCIT Cent. Cir. -4(1), Central Range-4, Mumbai vs. M/S. Runwal Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7048/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood

Section 24

income for Assessment Year 2012-13 on 30/09/2012, declaring total income at Rs.23,97,99,030/- and the same has been revised by filing revised return of income on 20/07/2013, declaring total income at Rs.24,14,83,100/-. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee derives leave

DCIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Premier Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1358/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhandcit-3(2)(2), M/S Premier Ltd R. No. 674, 6Th Floor, 58, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai -21 Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Jayesh Dadia &
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

income at Rs.Nil and „book profit‟ under Sec.115JB of the I.T Act at Rs. 1,893.16 lacs on 25.09.2008. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 16.03.2009, declaring total income at Rs.Nil. Thereafter, assessment under Sec.143(3) was framed on 07.12.2010 and the income was assessed

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1956/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri. H.P. Mahajan and Shri Prasad BaptiFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144C

crores under Section 80IC of the Act in the original return but subsequently reduced the claim to Rs. 86.44 crores in the revised return. Thereafter the assessee submitted the computation of total income during the assessment proceeding and has claimed a deduction of Rs. 359.67 crores u/s 80IC. It submitted

M/S Solitaire Build Tech Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), O/O Additional CIT Range-6, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3185/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Solitaire Build Tech Private Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax (Osd), No.349, 25Th Cross, 9Th Main, O/O Additional Cit, R-6, Bsk Ii Stage, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 070. Pan : Aagcs 0048 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rama Subramanyam, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Priyadarshini Mishra, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri. Rama Subramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Priyadarshini Mishra, JCIT
Section 143(3)

developers, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 on 01.10.2014 declaring income of Rs.27,94,350/-. The assessee subsequently filed a revised return of income on 29.09.2015 wherein the income declared was Rs.15,73,400/-. The case Page 2 of 8 was selected for scrutiny ... facts in assessing the total income at Rs. 27,94,345/- without considering the expenditure of Rs. 12,48,246/-claimed in the revised return filed. 3. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in holding that the appellant has not produced any proof for expenses

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Mcml Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 2122/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. N. Dhandapani, JCIT
Section 143(3)

loss of (-)Rs.2,02,01,133/- under normal provisions and ‘Book Profits’ under MAT provisions at Rs.4,98,44,075/-. The assessee filed a revised return 4 C.O. No.47/Bang/2017 of income on 19.01.2009. The case was selected for scrutiny for this Assessment Year. In the course of assessment proceedings

Noida Power Company Ltd., Greater Noida vs. JCIT, Noida

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3481/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 40

processed u/s 143(!). Thereafter, the case was selected for compulsory Scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) dated 20.09.2012. Thereafter, the assessee e-filed revised return on 31.03.2013 showing NIL income after set off of brought forward losses of Rs. 16,47,92,260/- and brought forward depreciation ... Book Profit u/s 115JB at Rs. 27,33,44,869/-. The reason for filing revised return 2 was stated that company has filed revised return claiming further deduction on account of power purchase price not debited to Profit and Loss account which was less claimed in the Original Return. Notice

Sh. Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1808/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhu & Sh. N. S. Sainiita No. 1808/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Vs Acit, S/O Phool Chand Yadav, 401, Circle-35(1), Mahavirjee Complex, Rishabh New Delhi Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpy8780E Assessee By : Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2019 Order Per N. S. Saini: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xix, New Delhi Dated 06.01.2015. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) Id. Cit(Appeals) Has Unfairly Upheld The Double Taxation Of Rs. 19.00.000/- Which Was Cash Deposit Into Bank Whereas In The Original Computation Of Income Assessee Included The Income Of Rs. 19,00,000 As Cash Credit Into Bank. (2) Id. Cit(Appeals) Has Unfairly Upheld The Addition Of Rs. 19,00.000/- (Against The Duly Declared Agriculture Income Of Rs. 20,00,000/-) Treated Them As Undisclosed Income U/S 68 Of The Act In The Impugned Order U/S 143(3) Whereas Only Rs. 1,00,000/- Has Been Allowed As Agricultural Income. The Appellant/Assessee Prays For Grant Of Permission To Add/Insert/Alter/ Modify/Rectify Any Part Of The Above 2 Jitendra Kumar Yadav Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Either Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of This Appeal.” 3. In Ground No. 1 Of The Appeal, The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.19,00,000/- On Account Of Cash Deposit In Bank Account.

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

accepted the above contention of the assessee and not reduced Rs.19,00,000/- on the ground that the assessee has not filed revised return of income. 9. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer for the same reason. 10. The Authorized Representative ... Assessing Officer, was disallowed on the ground that there was no provision under the Act to make amendment in the return without filing a revised return. Appeal to the Supreme Court, as the decision was upheld by the Tribunal and the High Court, was dismissed making clear that the decision

ITO, Bulandshahr vs. Jitendra Kumar, Bulandshahr

ITA 3909/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Income-Tax Officer, Vs Shri Jitender Kumar, Ward-3(2), Bulandshahr. Village Ibrahimpurjunedpur Ur Mauzpur, Khurja, Bulandshahr, Up. Pan: Bjspk0731L Appellant Respondent Assessee By: None Department By: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.04.2019 Order Per Narasimha K. Chary, Jm Aggrieved By The Order Dated 30.03.2015 In Appeal No. 110/2013- 14 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Ghaziabad{“Cit(A)”} For Assessment Years 2009-10, Assessee Preferred This Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

there was a yield of wheat and jwar at the time of transfer on the land. Learned AO further stated that the assessee filed revised return on 5.3.2013 declaring income at Rs.1,52,742/- also an agricultural income of Rs.41,000/- and the agricultural income of Rs.41,000/- was accepted

Dilip Kumar, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ranchi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 318/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 318/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Kumar –Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi [Pan: Adlpk 4085 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari Lal Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

held that a claim for deduction which has not been made in the return of income cannot be made other than by filing a revised return. Accordingly, the ld. Assessing Officer was justified in not allowing the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Grounds of appeal are dismissed ... makes it clear that the same nowhere impinges upon the appellate authorities’ jurisdiction under the Act to entertain a new plea in absence of revised return. 4. Same order to follow in latter assessee’s appeal I.T.A. No. 278/Ran/2018 since the lower authorities have not made any reference

Namita Pandey, Palamau vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Ranchi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 278/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 318/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dilip Kumar –Vs- Dcit, Circle-1, Ranchi [Pan: Adlpk 4085 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hari Lal Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 54

held that a claim for deduction which has not been made in the return of income cannot be made other than by filing a revised return. Accordingly, the ld. Assessing Officer was justified in not allowing the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Grounds of appeal are dismissed ... makes it clear that the same nowhere impinges upon the appellate authorities’ jurisdiction under the Act to entertain a new plea in absence of revised return. 4. Same order to follow in latter assessee’s appeal I.T.A. No. 278/Ran/2018 since the lower authorities have not made any reference

Sri.Suhail Ameer Manappat, Kochi vs. The DCIT(Int.Taxation), Kochi

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

ITA 296/COCH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Rajinark P
Section 143(3)

mistake on part of the appellant is not a part of the assessment order. It is seen that the appellant has not filed a revised return, rectifying his own mistake. He also did not bring this mistake to the notice of the A.O. during the course of assessment proceedings ... ground that the mistake was committed by the assessee himself and not by the Assessing Authority and that the assessee had not filed any revised return to correct the mistake. The revised return could have been filed by the assessee only if the mistake was noted before completion

Poojashish Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1120/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal &For Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT)
Section 1Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

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

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2376/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

assessee fails to make the return required under sub-section (1) of section 139 and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of that section, or ii) The assessee fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued ... taken entries of nearly Rs. 40 crores have voluntarily surrendered it for taxation without any further enquiry. v) Several assessees have filed revised return since the enquiry and have taken back their claim of exemption. 4.4. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has in the recent past, passed

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

assessee fails to make the return required under sub-section (1) of section 139 and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of that section, or ii) The assessee fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued ... taken entries of nearly Rs. 40 crores have voluntarily surrendered it for taxation without any further enquiry. v) Several assessees have filed revised return since the enquiry and have taken back their claim of exemption. 4.4. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has in the recent past, passed

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

assessee fails to make the return required under sub-section (1) of section 139 and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of that section, or ii) The assessee fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued ... taken entries of nearly Rs. 40 crores have voluntarily surrendered it for taxation without any further enquiry. v) Several assessees have filed revised return since the enquiry and have taken back their claim of exemption. 4.4. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has in the recent past, passed

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2373/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

assessee fails to make the return required under sub-section (1) of section 139 and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of that section, or ii) The assessee fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued ... taken entries of nearly Rs. 40 crores have voluntarily surrendered it for taxation without any further enquiry. v) Several assessees have filed revised return since the enquiry and have taken back their claim of exemption. 4.4. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has in the recent past, passed

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Punjab National Bank, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1810/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri K. N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2012-13] The A.C.I.T. Vs. Punjab National Bank Circle – 20(1) Head Office, Finance Division New Delhi 5, Sansad Marg, New Delhi Pan No. Aaacp 0165 G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Krishnan, CA

time limit for creation of special reserve under section 36(1)(viii) of the Act and that the entire direction claimed in the revised return filed on 30th March 2010 was allowable. Ld. CIT(A) held that such decision is binding precedent on the aspect. 19 CIT(A), however, held