← 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

Itc Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, RG-8, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 685/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Senior Counsel
Section 143(3)

shut up for all the times to come merely because it is raised for the first time in appellate proceedings in absence of a revised return filed before the Assessing Officer. We therefore accept assessee’s instant additional ground in principle and leave it open for the Assessing Officer

DCIT, Cir-8, Kolkata vs. M/S Itc Limited, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1267/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Md. Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Senior Counsel
Section 143(3)

shut up for all the times to come merely because it is raised for the first time in appellate proceedings in absence of a revised return filed before the Assessing Officer. We therefore accept assessee’s instant additional ground in principle and leave it open for the Assessing Officer

Iljin Automotive Private Limited, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT Company Circle 2 (3), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for

ITA 1232/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं/.I.T.A. No. 1232/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 Iljin Automotive Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Plot No. B1 & B2, Sipcot, Industrial Vs. Company Circle – 2(3), Park, Chennai – 600 034. Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram, 602 105. [Pan: Aaaci 2641E] ("#यथ%/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri. M N Rangamani, CA
Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

allow the additional depreciation u/s. 32(1)(iia). The AO rejected the assessee’s claim stating that it is not supported by any revised return. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed this appeal with ... machinery of Rs. 12,67,66,119 made during the course of assessment proceedings by stating that the claim was not supported by a revised return. 2.2 The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant is eligible for additional depreciation in accordance with Explanation 5 to clause

Satish Katoch, Palampur vs. ITO, Palampur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 298/CHANDI/2017[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: The A.O. U/S 154 Of The Act Against

For Appellant: None(Written submission)For Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
Section 140ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 154Section 208Section 210

their Lordships of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held "that there is no provision in the Act requiring the assessee to file a revised return of income in regard to the relevant assessment years after the Supreme Court had 13 A.Y.2007-08 reversed the judgment of the High Court ... assess the escaped income. Notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee only on 27th Dec, 2000, and the assessee filed its revised returns within the time allowed by that notice and the assessments were completed. The tax that became due in terms of the revised returns had also

Sh. Satpal Gosain, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 132/CHANDI/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Kehlon, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Notice u/s 148 was issued on 04 01.2010 and served on the assessee on 07.01.2010. In response to the same, the appellant filed a revised return u/s 148 on 02.02.2010 which also included income from capital gains amounting to Rs.22,00,670/- after applying indexation. The Assessing Officer rejected this ... return by holding that the revised return filed by the assessee was beyond time prescribed u/s 139(5) and therefore was treated as non-est. The CIT (Appeals) in the quantum order for the year under consideration has held that the return filed in response to notice

Vardhman Holdings Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ACIT

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

ITA 88/CHANDI/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Goyal, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80HSection 80I

showed subsidy as revenue receipt by way of credit in the Profit & Loss Account but subsequently claimed the same as capital receipt in the revised return filed. During assessment proceedings, the assessee filed details of the scheme of Punjab Government as per which the subsidy had been received and submitted

ACIT, Ludhiana vs. M/S Vardhman Holdings Ltd., Ludhiana

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

ITA 118/CHANDI/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2018AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Goyal, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80HSection 80I

showed subsidy as revenue receipt by way of credit in the Profit & Loss Account but subsequently claimed the same as capital receipt in the revised return filed. During assessment proceedings, the assessee filed details of the scheme of Punjab Government as per which the subsidy had been received and submitted

Manoj S. Gugale, Ahmednagar vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1327/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1327/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Manoj S. Gugale 652, Shantisadan, Topkhana, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ahmednagar …. Pan: Adzpg9595N Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 3, Ahmednagar

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

assessee voluntarily. The onus was on the assessee to declare the said income in the return of income or may be in the revised return of income within stipulated time. The declaration, if any, made during the course of assessment proceedings, once the proceedings have been commenced and the assessee

Haldia Petrochemicals Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 622/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. No. 622/Kol/2017 Assessment Year 2008-09 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd...............................……………………………….........................Appellant Bengal Eco Entelligent Park (Techna), Tower – 1, Block – Em, Plot No. – 3, Sector – V, Salt Lake City, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] D.C.I.T. Cir 11(1)...................…………………………………………......................................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 I.T.A. No. 609/Kol/2017 Assessment Year 2008-09 D.C.I.T. Cir 11(1)...................………………………………………….........................................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd...............................………………………………...................Respondent Bengal Eco Entelligent Park (Techna), Tower – 1, Block – Em, Plot No. – 3, Sector – V, Salt Lake City, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Appearances By: Shri H Chakraborty, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 01, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 22, 2018 Order Shri P.M. Jagtapthese Two Appeals, One Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 622/K/2017 & The Other Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 609/K/2017, Are Cross Appeals Which Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 10, Kolkata Dated 30.01.2017. 2. The Issue Involved In Ground No. 1 Of The Assessee’S Appeal Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs. 57,53,60,000/- Made By The A.O. & 2 I.T.A. Nos. 622 & 609/Kol/2017 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Unexplained Excess Consumption Of Raw Material (Nahptha).

Section 143(3)

account of the tax payable on book profit as provided in amended provision of s. 115JB and then filed its revised return of 3lst March, 2003 declaring its business income as nil but the book profit under s. 115JB as Rs. 20,63,65,771. The AO accepted such return

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is treated as partly allowed while the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 609/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. No. 622/Kol/2017 Assessment Year 2008-09 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd...............................……………………………….........................Appellant Bengal Eco Entelligent Park (Techna), Tower – 1, Block – Em, Plot No. – 3, Sector – V, Salt Lake City, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] D.C.I.T. Cir 11(1)...................…………………………………………......................................Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 I.T.A. No. 609/Kol/2017 Assessment Year 2008-09 D.C.I.T. Cir 11(1)...................………………………………………….........................................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd...............................………………………………...................Respondent Bengal Eco Entelligent Park (Techna), Tower – 1, Block – Em, Plot No. – 3, Sector – V, Salt Lake City, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan: Aaach 7360 R] Appearances By: Shri H Chakraborty, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 01, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 22, 2018 Order Shri P.M. Jagtapthese Two Appeals, One Filed By The Assessee Being Ita No. 622/K/2017 & The Other Filed By The Revenue Being Ita No. 609/K/2017, Are Cross Appeals Which Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 10, Kolkata Dated 30.01.2017. 2. The Issue Involved In Ground No. 1 Of The Assessee’S Appeal Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs. 57,53,60,000/- Made By The A.O. & 2 I.T.A. Nos. 622 & 609/Kol/2017 Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of Unexplained Excess Consumption Of Raw Material (Nahptha).

Section 143(3)

account of the tax payable on book profit as provided in amended provision of s. 115JB and then filed its revised return of 3lst March, 2003 declaring its business income as nil but the book profit under s. 115JB as Rs. 20,63,65,771. The AO accepted such return

M/S Gmr Energy Trading Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2065/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Gmr Energy Trading Ltd., 25/1, Skip House, Museum Road, Bengaluru-560 025. … Appellant Pan:Aadcg0771C Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 3(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri Sunil Jain, Ca. Respondent By : Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 115Section 251(1)(a)

assessment year 2009-10 on payment basis during the year under appeal on the ground that the claims were not made by filing the revised return of income. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer cannot stand the test of the law laid down by several High Courts ... that such decision does not relate to the power of the assessing officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the process the Supreme Court recognized that a new claim could not be entertained by the assessing officer without the assessee revising

M/S Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10, Kolkata

ITA 238/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy]

Section 250

deduction of the notional gain of Rs. 14,31,45,318/- on the ground that such claim was not made in the Return/ revised Return without considering the fact that since the time for filing the revised return had unfortunately expired but the deduction was validly claimed in course ... entertain such claim of deduction made before him in case an assessee omits to make a claim before the AO in a Return/ revised Return. 4) For that your petitioner craves the right to put additional grounds and 1 or to alter/ Amend/modify the present grounds before

DCIT, Circle-10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2086/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy]

Section 250

deduction of the notional gain of Rs. 14,31,45,318/- on the ground that such claim was not made in the Return/ revised Return without considering the fact that since the time for filing the revised return had unfortunately expired but the deduction was validly claimed in course ... entertain such claim of deduction made before him in case an assessee omits to make a claim before the AO in a Return/ revised Return. 4) For that your petitioner craves the right to put additional grounds and 1 or to alter/ Amend/modify the present grounds before

M/S. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range-10, Kolkata

ITA 1880/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy]

Section 250

deduction of the notional gain of Rs. 14,31,45,318/- on the ground that such claim was not made in the Return/ revised Return without considering the fact that since the time for filing the revised return had unfortunately expired but the deduction was validly claimed in course ... entertain such claim of deduction made before him in case an assessee omits to make a claim before the AO in a Return/ revised Return. 4) For that your petitioner craves the right to put additional grounds and 1 or to alter/ Amend/modify the present grounds before

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. Kanoria Chemicals & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 271/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy]

Section 250

deduction of the notional gain of Rs. 14,31,45,318/- on the ground that such claim was not made in the Return/ revised Return without considering the fact that since the time for filing the revised return had unfortunately expired but the deduction was validly claimed in course ... entertain such claim of deduction made before him in case an assessee omits to make a claim before the AO in a Return/ revised Return. 4) For that your petitioner craves the right to put additional grounds and 1 or to alter/ Amend/modify the present grounds before

Manoj Kumar Mulasi, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 378/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.378/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. D. Kumudha, JCIT

disclosing long term capital gains of ₹2,15,77,952/- and paid the taxes also. Subsequently, according to the Ld. representative, the assessee filed revised return withdrawing the entire long term capital gains and claimed refund. Referring to the Share Transfer Agreement dated 28.01.2013, a copy of which is available ... According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee initially filed return of income disclosing the capital gain, however, he withdrew the same by filing the revised return, therefore, the Assessing Officer assessed the long term capital gains during the year under consideration. Hence, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals

Gulab L. Bodke, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 10(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2828/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 55A

original return of income for the impugned assessment year on 21-08-2009 declaring income of Rs.3,25,898/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 31-03-2013 further disclosing Capital Gain on sale of land at Gahunj, Pune. In the revised return of income the assessee ... findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee had filed revised return of income on 31- 03-2013 i.e. beyond the period of one year from the end of the assessment year. Hence, the revised return

Shri H Hanumanthappa vs. The Income-Tax Officer

ITA/11/2011HC Karnataka14 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 139(4)Section 260Section 54B

filed his return of income as an individual for the Assessment Year 2004-05 declaring total income of Rs.45,000/-. Subsequently, he filed a revised return of income under the head ‘income from other sources’ and income from capital gains on the land acquired by Bangalore Development Authority

The ACIT-2(1), Ujjain vs. Shri Sanjay Bagdi, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 327/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Sanjay Bagdi, Income Tax – 2(1), Vs. 173 Alakhdham Nagar, Ujjain Ujjain (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Ahcpb6349L Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri S.S. Deshpande & Bhavesh Netkar,Cas Date Of Hearing 01.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2018 O R D E R

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145

person— (a) 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 Sanjay Bagdi (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice

The Kadiyan Coop. L&C Society Ltd., Panipat vs. ACIT, Circle Panipat, Panipat

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 667/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishithe Kadiyan Coop L&C Society Vs. Acit, Ltd, Circle Panipat V&Po Sewah, Panipat, Haryana Pan: Aaalt0541R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Aneja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 155Section 80

under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, disclosing total income of Rs. 6,76,22,600. The petitioner later filed a revised return on March 29, 2001, disclosing an income of Rs. 3,48,84,790. 3. The reduction of income was, according to the petitioner, by reason ... petitioner made enquiries and came to learn that the Assessing Officer had issued a revised intimation dated March 27, 2002, accepting the revised return filed by the petitioner on March 29, 2001. 9. The alleged reasons for rectification of the intimation dated March 27, 2002, as disclosed in the notice