← 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

V.K.C.Jayamohan, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1876/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sendamarai KannanFor Respondent: Mr.V.Sreehdhar,JCIT,D.R
Section 271(1)(C)Section 274

Method and consequently the expenditure claimed by assessee was liable to be added. It was a submission that subsequently the assessee had submitted a revised return dated 20.03.2015/ P&L Account by admitting the closing work- ITA No.1876 /chny/2017 :- 3 -: in-progress of each project, which was not taken ... immediately succeeding assessment year when the projects were completed, the expenditure in entirety has been allowed in so far as the assessee has filed revised returns for claiming the said expenditure in the subsequent assessment years. It was a submission that there is no concealment of income nor furnishing

Ayoki Fabricon Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2155/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2155/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ayoki Fabricon Pvt. Ltd., 137 To 139, Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Pune. Pan : Aabca5780F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle- 1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Nimit Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 14.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Depreciation Of Rs.1,10,53,748/- U/S 32(1)(Iia) On New Plant & Machinery On The Ground That The Assessee Was Not Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Or Production Of Any Article Or Thing. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring The Fact That – I) The Details Furnished To The Assessing Officer By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Were Same As Were Furnished During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) & Therefore.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kamat, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

said Act was passed after the respondent had made adhoc claim for expenditure at 30% of the professional receipts in the revised return of income which was later withdrawn. In fact the reasons for reopening the assessment for the year 2002- 03 itself records that the claim of 30% adhoc

M/S Kota Dall Mill, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 998/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 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

M/S Kota Dall Mill, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 997/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S Kota Dall Mill, Kota

ITA 1057/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 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

Jalan Carbons & Chemiclas (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir 4(2), Kol., Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.361/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal& Amit Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45(2)Section 45(4)

issue are that the assessee had filed return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.77,29,760/-. Later on, a revised return was filed, declaring total income to the tune of Rs.2,15,10,270/- on 15.03.2013. The revised return was selected for scrutiny by the Department

DCIT, Central Circle - 1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Hindustan Urban Infrastructure Ltd.(Hindustan Vidyut Product Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1616/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

Rs.40.1/- per square yard). However, subsequently, the appellant declared capital gain on the same sale at Rs.26,36,35,288/- in the revise return of income (taking the cost of acquisition @ Rs.60.00 per square yard. This is on the basis of the report of a Registered Valuer. ITA No.1615-1616/Kol/2017 ... purchase of the land by the aforermentioned company was @ Rs.45.89 per square yard in 1982-83 FY. While the appellant’s argument that the revised return of income replaces the original return of income filed under the Act is plausible yet the fact that the cost of acquisition was increased

DCIT, Central Circle - 1(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Hindustan Urban Infrastructure Ltd.(Hindustan Vidyut Product Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1615/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

Rs.40.1/- per square yard). However, subsequently, the appellant declared capital gain on the same sale at Rs.26,36,35,288/- in the revise return of income (taking the cost of acquisition @ Rs.60.00 per square yard. This is on the basis of the report of a Registered Valuer. ITA No.1615-1616/Kol/2017 ... purchase of the land by the aforermentioned company was @ Rs.45.89 per square yard in 1982-83 FY. While the appellant’s argument that the revised return of income replaces the original return of income filed under the Act is plausible yet the fact that the cost of acquisition was increased

Indecomm Global Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1589/BANG/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Rashmi R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10A

claiming deduction u/s.10A of the Act at 100% of profits. The AO did not entertain the claim as it was not made in a revised return of income filed but the CIT(A) allowed the claim of the Assessee. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). Reliance ... DCIT (2007) 15 SOT 252 (Mum-ITAT) wherein it was held that appellate authorities to entertain a new claim de hors filing revised return of income and that the prohibition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz India

Jitinder Singh Chadha, New Delhi vs. Prcit-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

income which was originally filed on 30.07.2013 and the assessee could have included the same in the original return or subsequently in his revised return, however, the assessee failed to do the same. The AO rejected the claim of the assessee and assessed the income at Rs.4

Mahendra Raghunath Patil, Satara vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Satara

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

ITA 3084/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3084/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Mahendra Raghunath Patil, ‘Suyog Apartments’ Shaniwar Peth, Karad, Dist. Satara. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Abwpp1713C …. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. ""यथ" / Respondent Ward- 1, Satara. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni : Shri M. K. Verma ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By घोषणा क" तारीख / सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 28.12.2018 Date Of Hearing : 27.12.2018 आदेश / Order Per Sushma Chowla, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-13, Pune Dated 11.10.2017 Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10 Against Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Present Appeal Is The Application Of Gp Rate On The Unaccounted Receipts & Resultant Addition In The Hands Of The Assessee. 2

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Kulkarni
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

declared any income from the aforesaid contract receipts of Rs.2.29 crores (approximately) received from Flagship Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and C.B. Construction. The assessee filed revised return of income after the issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and declared additional income of Rs.22 ... rate of 15% and made addition of Rs.34,48,026/-. Since the assessee had already declared income of Rs.15,54,248/- in the revised return of income, the balance income of Rs.11,49,342/- were also added in the hands of the assessee. 4. The CIT(A) confirmed the said

M/S Kota Dall Mill, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 999/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 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

Nuwave Esolutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamblenuwave Esolutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Cit(A) 3Rd Floor, District Centre, Delhi-V Dda Building, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Aabcn5790Q (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40Section 92

said claim of deduction was revised to Rs. 50,52,24,355/- by way of filing revised return on 20.08.2008. The assessee company revised its return as it did not consider the gain on account of currency fluctuation of export proceed amounting ... Rs.43,49,83,092/- + Rs.1,23,33,934/-), as against Rs. 50,52,24,355/- claimed in the revised return. The Assessing Officer also made disallowance to the extent of Rs.3,55,47,260/- u/s40(a)(ia)/40(a)(i) in the absence of TDS being deducted at the prescribed

ACIT, Circle - 10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Vesuvius India Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2332/KOL/2017[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:1999-00

Section 114Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80I

higher value than actually allowable as per Act. In response to the said notice the assessee vide letter dated 19-01-2005 stated that revised return be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 1.1 In appeal it is submitted that the reopening of the case

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. Shri Liadhar Agarwala, Kolkata

ITA 1605/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271A

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 disclosing additional income, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) upon assessee on plea that he had furnished inaccurate particulars of income

Haldor Topsoe (I) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 654/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. H.P. Aggarwal, FCA, and Ms. Prashuka Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay I. Bara, CIT (DR)
Section 10ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

ITA No.-654/Del/2015. Haldor Topsoe India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘I

M/S. Dewan Chand, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 2707/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. T.P.S. Kang. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

lost in transit. I pray that no penalty proceedings should be initiated against us in view of our co-operation. We will file the revised return for March, 2009 with the said revised income.” (2.1) The Assessee filed return of income on 14.10.2010 showing income

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

ITA 6151/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K.J. Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Return of income was filed by Assessee on 30.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 3,51,93,26,019, which was further revised vide revised return dated 24.10.2008 declaring income of Rs. 3,31,58,74,360. Subsequently, vide the assessment order under Section 143(3), the income was assessed

M/S. Housing & Urban Development Corporation Ltd. (Hudco), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal vide ITA No

ITA 5705/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan Kumar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. K.J. Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Return of income was filed by Assessee on 30.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs. 3,51,93,26,019, which was further revised vide revised return dated 24.10.2008 declaring income of Rs. 3,31,58,74,360. Subsequently, vide the assessment order under Section 143(3), the income was assessed

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed and the

ITA 533/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri N.S. Sainia.Y. : 2009-10 Smt. Sushmita Gupta, Vs. Acit, Cc-2, 100, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 003 (Pan: Aczpg1440P) (Appellant) (Respondent) A.Y. : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-32(1), Vs. Sh. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, Room No. 323, 3Rd Floor, 100, Sunder Nagar, Ara Centre New Delhi – 110 003 Jhandewalan Extn., (Pan: Aczpg1440P) New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 132(4)

unexplained cash, unexplained jewellery, foreign exchange and value of unexplained loose paper found during the search and the same they have disclosed in their revised return of income filed after the search pursuant to notice u/s. 142(1)/143(2) read with section 153A. The AO however, did not accept