“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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2952/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2002-03. Dcit, Circle 11(1) Federal Mogul Geotze India New Delhi Vs. Ltd. (Earlier Known As M/S Goetz India Ltd.) 52 B, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase Iii New Delhi 110 020

For Appellant: : Sh.R.K.Kapoor, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Mithun Shete, Sr.D.R

Section 115Section 14Section 143Section 143(1)Section 14A

computed at ₹9,71,65,895/-, and tax was computed accordingly. Return was processed under section 143(1). On 13/03/2003, assessee filed revised return of income at the same income, revising calculation mistake in original return. Gross total income before set off of brought forward losses and depreciation, now totalled

M/S. Jai Hanuman Enterprises (Firm), Angul vs. ITO, Angul Ward, Angul

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 233/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.233/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Jai Hanuman Vs. Ito, Angul Ward, Angul, Enterprises(Firm), Odisha At-Sanjeebani Market, Angul-759122 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaefj 7680 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty & Shri S.K.Dehuri, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 28.02.2017 Passed In First Appeal No.0024/2015-16 For The Assessment Year 2012-2013. 2. Ld. Assessee‟S Representative (Ar) Submitted That The Assessee Does Not Want To Press The Ground Nos.1 & 2, Accordingly, The Same Are Dismissed As Not Pressed. Grounds No.5 & 6 Are Of General In Nature, Therefore, The Same Are Not Being Adjudicated. 3. Now, The Remaining Effective Grounds Are Ground No.3 & 4, Which Read As Under :- “3. That, The Learned C.I.T (Appeals) Has Misconstrued/ Misappreciated The Facts & His Order Dated 28Th February

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 142(1)

person- (a) fails to make the return required 2 under sub- section (1) of section 139] and has not made a return or a revised return under subsection (4) or sub- section (5) of that section,] or 8 (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued

Kerala State Beverages M&M) Corpn Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Cir-1(1), Trivandrum

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assesse as well as the Stay Petition

ITA 537/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3(1)Section 40

Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,82,70,79,970/. A revised return was filed on 31.03.2016 declaring total income of Rs. 6,01,81,50,270/- and the assessment u/s 143(3) was completed

M/S.Kerala State Beverages(M&M) Corporation Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assesse as well as the Stay Petition

ITA 536/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3(1)Section 40

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Jubilant Organosyes Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 4975/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 43(1)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S Jubliant Organosys Ltd., Uttar Pradesh

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2596/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 43(1)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Jubilant Organosys Ltd., Noida vs. Addl. CIT, Moradabad

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 2497/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Beena A. Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 43(1)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Babita Khurana, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4707/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 274Section 50C

4707/Del./2018 Smt. Babita Khurana, New Delhi. Rs.1,82,00,000/-. The provisions of Section 50C was attracted in this case. Therefore, assessee filed revised return of income under section 153A declaring short term capital gain of Rs.8,75,000/- and has shown total income of Rs.14

M/S. Tcg Lifesciences Private Limited.(Formerly Known As Tcg Lifesciences Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2261/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148

company filed its original return of income on 30.09.2008 declaring a total income of Rs.9,98,63,964/-. Later on, the assessee filed the revised return on 30.03.2010 declaring total income at nil. In the computation, the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 10B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... return of income on 30.09.2008 declaring a total income of Rs.9,98,63,964/- for the AY 2008-09. Subsequently, the assessee filed the revised return on 30.03.2010 declaring total income at nil. In the computation the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 10B of the Act of Rs.8

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Prajay Engineers Syndicate Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1644/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S

Chetas Control Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1244/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri S.D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

accepted following purchases as bogus purchases and offered the same for taxation in respective assessment years as on record. The assessee, accordingly, filed revised return of income in which additional income of Rs.3,40,06,190/- accepted during the course of survey, was offered to tax. The assessment was completed ... also submitted that they have accepted bogus purchases made at the time of survey and have offered additional income to tax in the revised return filed, it is on account of stress and duress imposed upon them by the Revenue Authorities. They have made reiteration before

Chetas Control Systems Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1241/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri S.D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Shri Sohan Nath, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

ITA 888/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

declared any income from the liquor business. In response to the notice issued U/s 142(1) of the Act the assessee filed revised return of income on 30.07.2015 and declared total income of Rs. 6,38,900/-. The assessee has shown total sales from liquor business amounting ... Shri Sohan Nath vs. ITO 1,37,88,837/-. The AO treated as revised return of income as invalid and completed the assessment proceedings on the basis of the original return of income. Subsequently, the AO while passing the assessment order has also recorded satisfaction that the assessee

DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ashiana Housing Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 714/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 714/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit, Circle – 8(1)Kolkata.................................…………………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. [Pan: Aadca 9093 P] M/S. Ashiana Housing Limited...................………………………………………………….Respondent 11G, Everest, 46C, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700 071. Appearances By: Shri Shankar Halder, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate & Shri Rajat Agarwal, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 08, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 06, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtapthis Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 3, Kolkata Dated 23.02.2018 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Is Raised By The Revenue By Way Of The Following Ground: “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Future Development Expenses Amounting To Rs. 2,25,01,129/- By Ignoring The Fact That The Said Expenses Was Provision For Unascertained Liability.”

Section 143(3)Section 145

assessee in the present case is a company which is engaged in the business of real estate development & rendering hospitality services. In the revised return of income filed for the year under consideration on 02.09.2014, the total income of Rs. 46,14,17,450/- was declared by the assessee

Prakash Raj Bhansali, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 508/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. Ground No. 1 Is Regarding Validity Of Penalty Order Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On The Ground Of Defective Initiation Of Proceedings

For Appellant: Shri H.M. Singhvi (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (JCIT)

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee has already declared the transfer of sale of land in question for a consideration of Rs. 85,53,355/- in the revised return of income filed on 18.11.2013. Thus, it is a claim of exemption made by the assessee in respect of the income derived from sale

M/S.Mallelli Industries P. Ltd, Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Cir-1, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 573/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Sri. C.B.M.WarrierFor Respondent: Sri.Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 09.02.2016. Subsequent to the survey u/s 133A of the I.T.Act, the assessee filed a revised returning offering additional income of Rs.1,75,00,000. Accordingly, the assessee revised return declaring total income of Rs.4,29,10,720. The revised return filed ... assessee was accepted by assessment completed on 30.12.2016. 3.1 The CIT noticed that the A.O. had accepted the revised return blindly without making any further inquiry. Notice u/s 263 of the I.T.Act was issued by the CIT fixing the case for hearing on 22.10.2018. In the notice issued

ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

ITA 1765/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80

return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12 on 28/11/2011, declaring total income of Rs.74,73,80,890/-. Later it filed a revised return of income on 30/03/2013, declaring the same income. The Assessing Officer completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30/03/2014 interalia making disallowances

ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

ITA 1764/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80

M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 12, Kolkata

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

ITA 1573/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80

M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 12, Kolkata

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

ITA 1572/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80