“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

Patel Goyal Associates, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer

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

ITA 132/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.132/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Patel Goyal Associates, 501, Fortune House, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune-411004. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aahfp0519N …. Vs. Ito, Judicial (Hq), …. ""यथ" / Respondent Pune. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Kailash Agarwal ""थ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-3, Pune Dated 24.11.2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.29,65,196/- U/S 57(Iii) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Interest U/S 57(Iii). 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Interest Paid Ought To Have Been Allowed U/S 57(Iii). For That Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That When The Learned A.O. Has Recorded A Clear Cut Finding In The Assessment Order & Affirmed The Position Taken By The Appellant In Return Of Income That When Interest Is Not Claimed & Also Not Allowable U/S 36(1)(Iii), It Has To Be Allowed U/S 57(Iii). 3. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That When Borrowed Funds Were Not Required For Business Purposes Due To Availability Of Surplus Funds In Regular Business, Interest Is Paid Only To Earn Interest Income & Hence Interest Cannot Be Disallowed U/S 57(Iii).

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57Section 80I

declaring total income of Rs.1,22,63,150/- after claiming deduction of Rs.12.78 crores (rounded off) u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. In the revised returned of income, the said claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act was restricted to Rs.12.04 crores (rounded off) only. The revised return

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Delhi Tourism Transportation Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 716/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Agrawal, FCA and Shri Pancham Sethi, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 43B

case by failing to treat the assessment order passed by Ld. AO to be infructuous and void being based on original return when revised return is duly filed. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of case by: 2.1 directing the Ld. AO to consider ... revised return 2.2. allowing another opportunity to the Ld. AO for adjudicating upon the revised return through remand report when time period allowed by section 153(1) for concluding the assessment u/s 143(3) had already lapsed. 2.3 failing to appreciate that the remand report issued

M/S. Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 570/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Agrawal, FCA and Shri Pancham Sethi, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 43B

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Delhi Tourism Transporation Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2792/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Agrawal, FCA and Shri Pancham Sethi, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 43B

M/S. Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2489/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Agrawal, FCA and Shri Pancham Sethi, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153(1)Section 43B

M/S. Hotel Mahadev, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 1147/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri K.N. Chary[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Hotel Mahadev Vs. The I.T.O C/O Prem Prakash, Advocate Ward - 1(2) 183/2, North Civil Lines Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar Pan : Aaffh 4274 E [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2019

For Appellant: Shri Prem Prakash, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154

application pointing out that the income assessed u/s 143(1) of the Act was not in conformity with that of the income returned in revised return of income filed on 11.03.2012. The Assessing Officer rejected the rectification application pointing out that it is not maintainable. 4. The assessee carried ... matter before the CIT(A) but without any success. 7. Before us, the ld. AR strongly submitted that in the revised return of income, interest paid to partners and salary amounting to Rs. 2,51,038/- was claimed, which was not allowed while processing the return of income

ITO, WD-43(3), Kolkata vs. Vipul Gupta, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 868/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10ASection 10B

Goetz India Ltd. is in respect to the power of the AO to entertain a claim for reduction otherwise than by a revised return and did not impinge on the powers of the Tribunal. Further, in para 19 the Hon’ble High court held that there is no prohibition

Late Maheshkumar R. Joshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer (2)(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2486/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh

Section 154Section 57

along with an affidavit, however, the Assessing Officer rejected them only on the ground that the assessee did not rectify such mistake through a revised return of income. He submitted, before learned Commissioner (Appeals), though, the assessee had raised specific grounds seeking relief on account of excess income shown towards ... Assessing Officer could not have taken note of the mistakes committed in the return of income as the assessee did not file any revised return of income. However, he submitted, the assessee’s claim regarding actual interest income can be verified by the Assessing Officer. 7. We have considered rival

Dy. C.I.T. - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dipti Dattaraj Salgaonkar, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7403/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Dipti Dattaraj Salgaokar year 2006-07 on account of the deposit made in USD to the said account, he should have field the revised return of income declaring above undisclosed income. Further, the details of deposits made to the said account also have to be examined with reference

Torrent Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1562/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1562/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2011-12 ) बनाम/ Torrent Energy Ltd. The Ito Torrent House Ward-8(1) Vs. Nr.Dinesh Hall Ahmedabad Ashram Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct 8570 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar & Shri Parikh Shah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 19/03/2019 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 (Appeals)–8, Ahmedabad [Cit(A) In Short] Vide Appeal No.Cit(A)-Xiv/516/13-14 Dated 12.03.2015 Arising In The Assessment Order Passed Under S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Here-In-After Referred To As "The Act") Dated 21/02/2014 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Dismissing Ground No. 1 Of The Appellant'S Appeal Before Him Challenging The Very Validity Of The Assessment Order Torrent Energy Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst.Year - 2011-12 Impugned Before Him, On The Ground That It Was General In Nature & Did Not Require Adjudication By Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar &For Respondent: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr.DR

Section 32(1)

that the appellant had made that claim only by addressing a letter during the course of the assessment proceedings and not by filing a revised return, and that it was incumbent upon him, as the Appellate Authority, to consider that claim, in rejecting it. He ought to have appreciated, inter ... However, the AO rejected the assessee’s contention by observing that it can make any fresh claim before him only by filing the revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act. The AO placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported

ITO 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Devkant Synthetics (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5445/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.DRFor Respondent: Neel Khandelwal - Ld.AR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

30/12/2016 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.384.90 Lacs after disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.412.46 Lacs as against revised returned loss of Rs.27.56 Lacs. The assessee being resident corporate entity is stated to be engaged in dealing in shares and securities. The disallowance made

Intec Billing Ireland, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2 (2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2266/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Lohia & Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya

Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 9(1)(vi)

consideration for supply of the software to RIL. The assessee filed its original return of income on October 30, 2002 and subsequently filed a revised return of income on November 20, 2002. Under both the returns, the assessee claimed the aforesaid fees as not taxable in India on the following

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 160/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B

occasion may demand during appellate proceedings.” 2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee is an individual and filed revised return of income for assessment year 2012-13 on 14.02.2013 declaring total income of Rs. Nil and showing current year loss of (-) Rs.2,65,218/-. The return

M/S Giral Lignite Power Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala (JCIT)

Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

they have completed the statutory audit and submitted their audit report dated 27.03.2014. Thereafter, the tax audit has been completed on 15.07.2014 and the revised return was filed on 16.9.2014. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Punjab State Leather Development Corpn

Mohmooda Begum, Ranga Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 457/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Smt. Momina AlamFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey

Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

crores). The AO accordingly issued notice u/s.148 for the AY 2008-09 dated 09.02.2015, in response to which the assessee filed revised return of income for the AY 2009-10 on 15.12.16 declaring NIL capital gains after claiming deduction u/s.54B and 54F along with business income of Rs.1.70 lakhs ... revised return was filed for the AY 2008-09 and the assessee filed a letter dated 20.02.2016 stating that the original return of income filed may be considered in response to notice u/s.148. As stated above, no capital gains was declared in the return