“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

Asianet News Network P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7318/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha, Am M/S.Asianet News Network P. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, B-Wing, Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Jay Chambers, Service Road Mumbai Vile Parle (East), Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No. Aahca3961A Appellant) .. Respondent) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S.Asianet News Network P. Ltd., 2Nd Floor, B-Wing, Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Mumbai Jay Chambers, Service Road Vile Parle (East), Mumbai – 400 057 Pan/Gir No. Aahca3961A Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194JSection 40Section 9

Kannada. The assessee has filed its return of income for the A.Y.2012-13 on 30/09/2012 declaring total income of Rs.1,60,29,420/-. Subsequently, a revised return of income has been filed on 04/09/2013 declaring total loss of Rs.9,32,94,502/-. The case has been selected for scrutiny

Narendra P.Musale, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 153/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69

additional income, the assessee had also declared varying rates of GP i.e 8% to 11% and offered the same in the revised return of income. However, in fairness GP rate of 15% needs to be applied to work out the additional income in the hands of the assessee.” Respectfully following

Narendra P. Musale, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2226/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69

Narendra P. Musale, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1853/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69

Narendra P. Musale, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1521/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69

Sterling Addlife India Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 967/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.967/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Sterling Addlife India The Pr.Cit-4 Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad Vs. Sterling Hospital Buildings Off Gurukul Road Memnagar Ahmedabad-380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadca 0897 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dinal Shah & A.C.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax–4, Ahmedabad [Cit In Short] Dated 28/03/2018 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Dinal Shah & A.C.Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

unsigned letter dated 05-01-2016 before the AO. The AO admitted the claim of the assessee though the assessee did not file the revised return of income. 4.3. The ld. CIT accordingly noted that the AO allowed the deduction of the amount stated above without making any inquiry ... less than returned income. Therefore, the assessee company was Sterling Addlife India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT Asst.Year – 2013-14 not required to file the revised return since there is no prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Pr. CIT-4 has relied on the Apex Court decision in case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1205/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1188/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh

M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1053/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

company and has various business divisions such as lighting division, Medical systems, Consumer life style (CLS) and Philips software. It filed its revised return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 on 29/03/2011, declaring total income of Rs.226,03,72,854/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment

Group M Media (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) 7, Mumbai

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

ITA 501/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanm/S Group M Media (India) The Dcit (Osd)-7, Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Commerz 455, Aayakar Bhavan, International Business Park, M.K. Road, Oberoi Garden City, Off Mumbai-400020. Vs. Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063. Pan: Aadcm1073B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ajit Shah(Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Shah(AR)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Mishra (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 43B

services, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2010-11 on 13.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 64,49,47,710/-. Subsequently, the revised return was filed by assessee on 27.12.2010 declaring the same income relating credit of Tax Deducted at Source

Zaheer Abdulhamid Mulani, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1185/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. SrinivasanFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

case of CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory reported as 359 ITR 565. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has filed revised return on 18.12.2013 in compliance to section 139(5) of the Act. Since revised return was filed before assessment was A.Y.2011-12 completed ... that revised return, the assessee has reflected the salary and the interest component which was not included in the original return and thereby in compliance to section 139(5) of the Act, there is neither ‘concealment of income’ nor ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’ so far as the assessee

Torrent Energy Ltd., (New Merged With Torrent Power Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle 4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2035/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2035/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri V.R. Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 35D

However, the AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee made such claim without filing the revised return of income. 8.3. The assessee before the Ld.CIT (A) in addition to its claim of depreciation made a fresh claim by submitting that it is entitled

Sandeep Haribhai Dobariya, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, both quantum as well as penalty appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 360/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 360/Ahd/2018 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Somogyan Pal, Sr.DR

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

Loss account. The said plea cannot be acceded to because there was only one alternate for the assessee to revise his income by filing revised return of income through e-filing mode. The time for filing revised return has already been barred by limitation, the same cannot be considered ... amount from the Government department. To the last argument, it can be added here that the assessee had sufficient official time to file his revised return of income, since he has not availed the said chance, thore is no other alternate but to accept the original receipts by the assessee

Sandeep Haribhai Dobariya, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(5), Ahmedabad

In the result, both quantum as well as penalty appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1740/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 360/Ahd/2018 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divetia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Somogyan Pal, Sr.DR

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

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Mas Financial Services Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 2565/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Smt. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं.It No. 2565/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: None

Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessee company has filed his return of income on 26.09.2014 declaring total income at Rs. 49,69,50,500/- followed by revised return of income filed on 31.03.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 49,62,23,790/- which was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Under scrutiny notice

Subhash Chand Soni, Jaipur vs. ITO, Dausa

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri J. C. Kulhari (JCIT)

Section 131Section 68

fact that the department is having information regarding cash deposits of Rs. 22,55,000/- in his bank account then only he filed revised return of income/computation of total income on 24.11.2011 wherein he mentioned loss from speculation business of Rs. 1,32,582/-. The assessee concocted a story that ... these transactions in his return of income, if these were the real transactions. The assessee has not shown capital gain even in the revised return of income filed during assessment proceedings. From the above discussion it should be held that there was no actual sale of jewellery and the arguments

M/S. Hisar Foils Pvt. Ltd., Hisar vs. DCIT, Hisar

In the result appeal of assessee dismissed

ITA 709/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr.D.R

Section 115WSection 139(5)Section 154

that miscalculation or system error has been committed by the assessee, in which, the department has no role. The assessee did not file any revised return of income. Therefore, application under section 154 was rejected. The assessee challenged the order of the assessing officer under section 154 before Learned ... cross verified. 4 ITA.No.709/Del./2016 M/s. Hisar Foils Pvt. Ltd., Hisar. Haryana. By that time the period available us 139(5) for filling revised return was lapsed. Hence the appellant could not revise its return and filed an application u/s 154 before the A.O. which he rejected without understating

Shivganga Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Gandhinagar

ITA 1498/AHD/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1498/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shivganga Cold Storage Ito बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Ward-4 Vs. Block No. 530, Vill: Sampa Gandhinagar Dehgam – Modasa Highway, Dehgam, Dist: Gandhinagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aan Cs2 086 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Rupesh R. Shah, Ar Lalit P. Jain, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 03/01/2019 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/03/2019 Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Mahavir Prasad - Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Appeal No. Cit(A)-3/Gnr/171/2015-16 Dated 13.05.2016 Arising From Out Of Penalty Order Dated 28.08.2015 For Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Rupesh R. Shah, AR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

case are that original Return of Income was filed on 29/09/2012, declaring Loss of Rs. 11,68,290/- on account of Unabsorbed Depreciation. Revised return of income was filed on 18.12.2012, revising the unabsorbed depreciation to Ra. 11,92,811/-. The Return of Income was selected for scrutiny under CASS ... assessee had not furnished the particulars of Book Profit and MAT calculation u/s. 115JB of the Act in the original return of income or revised return of income. While finalizing the assessment total income of the assessee as well as MAT payable was determined as under: Total Income

M/S Flexituff International Ltd., Dhar vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 488/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12 M/S. Flexituff International Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd, Vs. Income Tax-I, C-41-50, Sez Sector, Indore Pithampur, Dist. Dhar (M.P) (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaacn5986H Revenue By Smt. Ashima Gupta, Cit Assessee By Shri Manjeet Sachdeva & Avinash Gaur, Advocates Date Of Hearing 18.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 22.03.2019 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 263

invoking power and revision u/s 263 of the Act. Assessee being limited company filed e-return on 26.9.2011 followed by revised return filed on 18.10.2012. Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 31.03.2014. Subsequently Pr. CIT initiated the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act observing that