“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

Nomura Research Institute Financial Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Knows As Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 284/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 284/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nomura Research Institute Financial Tech.(I) Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata (Formerly Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd.) [Pan: Aadca 8967 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 485/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata -Vs- Nomura Research Institute Financial Tech.(I) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Anshin Software Pvt. Ltd.) [Pan: Aadca 8967 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92Section 92F

common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The Ground Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are with regard to non- consideration of revised return of income filed by the assessee. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee filed its original return of income ... Asst Year 2011-12 on 17.11.2011 declaring total income of Rs 54,56,160/-. The revised return of income was filed on 29.11.2012 declaring total income of Rs 53,14,323/-. Admittedly this revised return was filed within the time limit prescribed

Vip Clothing Limited, Thane vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2889/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2889/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vip Clothing Ltd. (Formerly बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-1, Kalyan, 1St Floor, Mohan Known As Maxwell Vs. Industries Ltd.) Plaza, Near Mohan Pride, Vip Compound, Kon Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada, Village, Bhiwandi-Kalyan Kalyan(W). Road, Tal. Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane, Pin-421302 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcm1549A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra ( Dr) Assessee By: Subodh L. Ratnaparkhi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 Aurangabad [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2012-13 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirm. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Subodh L. RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra ( DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50B

allowable. There was a bonafide mistake on the part of the assessee for calculating the LTCG. Moreover, the assessee has filed the revised return of income which has been accepted by the Department. In view of the revised return of income, we nowhere find any concealment of income or furnishing

ITO 5(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Crimson Properties Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2234/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Shri Ravish Soodi.T.O. Ward-5(1)(3), Crimson Properties Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 569, 5Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Sunama House, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kemps Coner, Opp. Shalimar Hotel, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 036 Pan – Aaacc2206R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kapadia, A.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24

Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. C.I.T. (284 ITR 323) wherein it was held that the claim of deduction cannot be entertained otherwise than by filing revised return of income. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and the order ... raise the aforesaid claim of interest expenditure, therein the only recourse available to it was to have raised the same by filing a revised return of income. Per contra, the ld. A.R relied on the order of the CIT(A). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that

Fives Stein India Projects Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8, Kolkata

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

ITA 1352/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Fives Stein India Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 8, Kolkata Infinium Digispace, Plot No. 15, Block Cp, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Sector – V, 1St Floor, Bidhannagar Salt Lake Kolkata – 700 069. Kolkata – 700 071 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 7768 M (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Giri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12 on 25.11.2011, showing a total income of Rs. 84,64,026/-. Subsequently, the assessee company filed revised return on 28.03.2013, showing total income of Rs. 1,16,26,633/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under section

Koninklijke Philips N.V, Kolkata vs. DCIT, (It)-1(2), Kolkata

ITA 381/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Vs. Dcit(It) – 1(1), Kolkata C/O Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Bengal Intelligent Park, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics – 700 107. Complex, Kolkata – 700 091. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacck 0806 B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Vs. Dcit(It) – 1(1), Kolkata Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. C/O Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd., Bengal Intelligent Park, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Building Alpha, Block Ep & Gp, 1St 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata Floor, Sector V, Salt Lake Electronics – 700 107. Complex, Kolkata – 700 091. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacck 0806 B (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ketan K. Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

assessee filed its original return of income on 30.09.2008 and declared a total income of Rs.1,625,791,320/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed its revised return of income on 29.03.2010, showing total income of Rs.254,079,858/-. As per the return of income filed and the notes annexed with ... above three agreements and has been considering its entire income as being taxable in India. It is however, pertinent to note that in the Revised Return of Income filed for the AY. 2008-09, the assessee has for the first time adopted the new stand of treating its income received

Koninklijke Philips N.V, Kolkata vs. DDIT (It)-1(1), Kolkata

ITA 565/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2018AY 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ketan K. Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V, Kolkata vs. DDIT (It) - 1(1), Kol, Kolkata

ITA 1889/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2018AY 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, Ketan K. Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

Tata Steel Ltd. (Successor-in-Interest to the Erstwhile Kalimati Investment Company Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhtata Steel Ltd. (Successor-In- Dcit - 2(3) (1) Aayakar Bhavan, 5Th Floor, Interest To The Erstwhile Kalimati Investment Company Ltd.), Vs. Room No. 552, M.K. Marg, Bombay House, 24 Homi Modi Mumbai-400020. Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aaact2803M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Raja A. Kapadia (AR)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. DR)

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 234Section 253Section 254(1)

warranted for the year under consideration. The contention of the assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer holding that the assessee while filing revised return of income have not made any disallowance under section 14A. The Assessing Officer without recording his dissatisfaction about the working of computation of disallowance under

Income-Tax Officer vs. M/S. Dirk India Private Ltd., Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 869/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 869/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

assessee failed to claim the same in the original return of income filed u/s.139 of the Act. The assessee has made claim in the revised return after computation of total income. The CIT(A) examined this issue and relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court

ITO, Ward - 35(3), Kolkata vs. Sri Laxmipat Surana, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2457/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Biswas, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate

Section 250Section 32

justified to allow the claim of the assessee for depreciation which was not made either in the original return or even by filing revised return. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned DR. In our opinion, the restriction laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ... authority is sufficiently empowered to entertain the claim made by the assessee for depreciation for the first time before him without even filing the revised return as clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) itself. Even the old circular of the CBDT

Asst CIT 18(3), Mumbai vs. Rattanchand Rikhabdas Jain Chemicals Works, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2013-2014

ITA 3252/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Acit-18(3), M/S Rattanchand Rikhabdas R No. 609, 6Th Floor, Jain Chemical Works, Earnest House, 428, Abhay House, Kalbadevi Nariman Point, Vs. Road, Gowind Wadi, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai – 400002 Pan: Aajfr7028L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, SonakshiFor Respondent: Shri J. Saravanan (DR)

Section 131Section 143Section 80I

return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring the total income of Rs. 70,62, 93,650/-. The assessee also filed revised return declaring the total income of Rs. 52,27,140/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. The return was processed ... 80IB. However, the enquiry conducted u/s 131 to verify the claim of deduction. The assessee filed original return without claiming deduction. However, the revised return was filed after claiming deduction. Enquiry revealed that the project premises consisting of five Wings, Club house, bank and other structures of which Wings

M/S. Ajay Kumar Gupta (HUF), Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5775/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year:

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 154Section 234BSection 40Section 80C

Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] has erred in confirming the disallowance in order u/s 154 of Rs. 100,000/- of deduction claimed u/s 80C by revised return on the incorrect ground that the same was not permissible under law because it was not claimed in the 2 original return ... claimed by way of revised return which is non-est return as the original return filed was belated. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that an HUF cannot be a partner in a firm ignoring the fact that the assessee HUF has been assessed for years

S.Arjun, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Ward 20(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2220/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate

Section 36(2)

return was revised on 14.03.2011, wherein a claim for bad debt of "1,60,22,144/- was made. It seems assessee filed one more revised return on 28.09.2011 reducing the claim for bad debt to "95,22,144/- from the original amount of "1,60,22,144/-. During the course

Sbi Cards Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed in terms of our observations and directions contained in

ITA 5879/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 Sbi Cards Payment Acit Services Pvt. Ltd. Circle-7(1), 401,402, 4Th Floor, C.R.Building, I.P.Estate Aggarwal Millenium New Delhi Vs. Tower, E 1,2,3, Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur New Delhi Pan : Aaecs5981K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri K. Tewari, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Tushar Jarwal, Rahul Sateeja, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2018

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Jarwal, Rahul Sateeja, AdvFor Respondent: Shri K. Tewari, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

directing the Ld. AO in granting TDS credit to the extent of Rs. 33,91,887 as claimed by the Appellant in the revised return of income. That the Ld. AO has consequentially erred in levying 5.2. excess interest under section 234B, 234D and withdrawing 6 interest under section 244A

Neeta Dattatraya Takle, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 80/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 54BSection 54B(1)

Briefly in the facts of the case, the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny u/s.147 of the Act. The assessee filed revised return of income declaring total income of Rs.15,50,211/- in response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act which was not filed within

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Umesh Gupta, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3833/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Umesh Gupta, Circle-39(1), W-33, Greater Kailash, New Delhi Part-I, New Delhi Pan: Aaepg4743J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT DR

Section 132(4)Section 133A

reduced u/s 43 of the Act from „actual cost‟ of WDV of fixed assets. Giving the effect of the same, he further revised return of income of companies for A.Y. 2009-10 reducing the 3 ACIT V Umesh Gupta AY 2009-10 depreciation claim. Briefly, he submitted in the retraction

Rajratan Global Wires Ltd., Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(1), Indore

In the result Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 589/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14A

wherein it was held that appellant cannot amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. Keeping in mind the decision of M/s. Goetze India Ltd (Supra), the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. Accordingly, this addition is confirmed ... will not be applicable in the facts of the assessee because in the instant appeal the issue is not related to filing of revised return. Rather in the instant appeal the issue was related only to the correct calculation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. It was duly submitted

Rieter India Private Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1551/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1551/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

SAPL were two separate companies and it is only due to the retrospective merger of these companies, the merged entity file the revised return considering the taxable income/loss of SAPL. The assessee had entered into various international transactions with its associated enterprises. The Assessing Officer made reference to Transfer Pricing ... Explanation (1) to sub- section (2) of section 115JB of the Act. The assessee had not made the aforesaid claim in its revised return of income. The CIT(A) applying the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geotze India Ltd. Vs. CIT reported

JCIT, Rang-2, Kota vs. Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 575/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 14A

However, as per the Assessing Officer, as the assessee company had received the compensation in March 2012, at least at the time of filing revised return of income which was filed on 20.08.2012, M/s Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. ACIT the assessee was expected to declare ... account of loss on revaluation of inventories . 17. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee in its revised return of income has claimed loss on revaluation of inventories of Rs. 42,38,664/- which was earlier disallowed in the assessment year 2006-07 and which has been

Chambal Fertilisers and Chemicals Limited, Kota vs. JCIT, Kota

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 461/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 14A