“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

M/S. Star Wire (India) Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4876/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 4875/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 4876/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Star Wire (India) Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 35, Link Road, 2Nd Floor, Lajpat Tax, Circle-24(2), Nagar-Iii, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs1124Q Assessee By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 24.06.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon For The Assessment Years 2006-07 & 2007-08. 2. Since, The Issues Involved Are Common In These Appeals Which Were Heard Together, So, These Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69C

response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act filed the return of income initially at Rs.3,67,66,430/- on 11.08.2009. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 08.10.2009 declaring an income of Rs.3,78,16,430/- and finally declaring a taxable income of Rs.3 ... completed on a total income of Rs.3,79,58,650/- vide order dated 30.12.2010 as against the declared income of Rs.3,78,16,430/- (revised return). The said declared income is inclusive of Rs.11,92,220/- being u/s 69C of the Act, on account of unaccounted for business expenditure. That

M/S. Star Wire (India) Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4875/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69C

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Abhijit Suresh Jadhav, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1612/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 72Section 80

loss return is filed u/s.139(3) there is no bar if the loss is enhanced or the loss is reduced by filing of revised return. The objection of the Assessing Officer is if a positive income is revised to a loss then it cannot be allowed to be carried forward ... appellant claims that since revised return is filed within time prescribed u/s.139(5), the Assessing Officer should have considered the revised return while framing the assessment order. 3.6.1. In the case of Sujan Textile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2004) 88 ITD 317 (Mad.) the following propositions were upheld. 1. Once

ACIT Cir 1, Thane vs. Emco Ltd, Thane

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1289/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessee filed return of income showing current loss of Rs. 68,93,36,051/- which loss was revised by the assessee by filing revised return of income on 19.10.2011 showing current loss of Rs. 68,53,14,666/- for impugned assessment year. The assessee is engaged in the business ... assessee filed return of income showing current loss of Rs. 68,93,36,051/- which loss was revised by the assessee by filing revised return of income on 19.10.2011 showing current loss of Rs. 68,53,14,666/- for the impugned assessment year. The assessee is engaged in the business

Growmore Exports Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 31 Cen RG 7, Mumbai

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

ITA 1220/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 139(5)Section 57

lakhs should be allowed as deduction against interest income of ` 99.70 lakhs offered under ‘income from other sources’. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 10.12.2013, wherein the assessee claimed deduction of ` 146.74 lakhs on account of interest on loan for term deposits against interest income shown ... under ‘income from other sources’. The Assessing Officer has also held that revised return of income filed by the assessee is beyond the period prescribed under section 139(5) of the Act accordingly, did not recognize the same. The Assessing Officer accordingly rejected the claim of the assessee by following

M/S. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The ACIT, Circle-4, Surat

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 1576/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.2175/Ahd/2014/Srt & 1576/Ahd/2015/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Sahajanand Medical Technologies Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, Sahajanand Estate, Circle-4, Wakharia Wadi, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Dabholi Char Rasta, Majuragate, Ved Road, Surat-395004. Surat. [Pan Aafcs 7694 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)

Medical Technologies Pvt.Ltd v. ACIT/2175/14/1576/Ahd/2015 Page 14 of 16 revised statement of income after filing the original return other than by way of filing revised return of income as contemplated under section 139(5) of the Act. The CIT(A), therefore we are of the view that claim ... made by the assessee after filing of the original return other than by filing revised return. Since, the appellant never claimed the deduction in the return of income nor filed any revised return of income. Hence, this ground of the assessee was dismissed. 16. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed

M/S. Sahajanand Medical Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The ACIT, Circle-4, Surat

In the result, appeal for A

ITA 2175/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)

Nunhems India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst.CIT, Circle 16(1)

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 1775/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

resultant refund of Rs.1,33,08,189/- was made on 09.10.2007. 2.1 The assessee, thereafter, filed a revised return of income on 06.12.2010 admitting taxable income of Rs. 9,67,39,768/-, which was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings ... expenditure which has crystalized during the year and as such is not allowable. He accordingly, brought it to tax. 4. From the revised return of income, the A.O observed that the assessee has claimed the expenditure of Leave Travel Allowance offered to tax in the A.Y 2007-08, relating

Nunhems India Private Limited, R.R.Dist vs. JCIT, Range 16, Hyderabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 327/HYD/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2008-2009

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

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

Nunhems India Pvt.Ltd., R.R.Dist vs. Addl.CIT, Range-16, Hyderabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the A

ITA 290/HYD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 195Section 40Section 43B

M/S Bhandari Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 665/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

account of sale of mutual funds as business income whereas it is long term capital gain. Though the assessee has not filed any revised return claiming the said amount as long term capital gain, however, when the very nature of the income is capital gain and not business income then ... contention of the assessee and submitted that the assessee itself has offered the said income as business income and, therefore, in the absence of revised return, the AO had no jurisdiction to accept the claim of the assessee. She has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

ACIT 3(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Palace Gardens Chennai Sez Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 5205/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Chetan Karia, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai,Ld.DR

Section 143(3)

Income Tax Act, 1961 on 23/03/2015 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.6.96 Lacs after certain disallowances as against revised returned Loss of Rs.365.91 Lacs e-filed by the assessee for the impugned AY. As evident from grounds of appeal, the sole dispute involved under appeal

Arihant Developers, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

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

ITA 1569/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 133A

assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs.16,33,812/-, which was later revised to Rs.41,93,810/-. In the revised return of income, the assessee offered additional income of Rs.25.00 lakhs. The AO took the view that the assessee should have offered additional income ... submitted that the addition, if any, should be made for the difference of Rs.65.00 lakhs and the income declared in the revised return of income. 6. The Ld A.R further submitted that if the addition is sustained, then the corresponding expenditure should be allowed. 7. When the bench asked

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1187/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

business of share broking, filed its Return of income of 30/09/2011 declaring income of Rs.1,10,25,71,740/-.Later on a revised return was filed on 25.10.2012 declaring income of Rs.109.20 crores.The AO completed the assessment on 28/03/2014 u/s.143(3) of the Act determining his income at Rs.110.29 crores

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1188/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 469/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 468/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

Sigaram Constructions (P) Ltd., Erode vs. ITO Ward 1(4), Erode

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1246/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT

Section 108Section 143(3)Section 153Section 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 292B

which the income was first assessable; or (b) one year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier ITA No.1246 /CHNY/2018 :- 11 -: The assessment year being

Andhra Pradesh Grameena Bank, Kadapa vs. JCIT, Range-2, Tirupathi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee bank is dismissed as unadmitted

ITA 1086/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiahassessment Year: 2011-12 Andhra Pragathi Grameena Vs. Jt. Commissioner Of Bank, Income Tax, Kadapa. Range - 2 Tirupati. Pan – Aamfa 8921A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G. Seshachalam Revenue By : Shri Pathlevath Peerya Date Of Hearing : 16-05-2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-06-2018 Order Per D. Manmohan: This Is An Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee, A Cooperative Society. Penalty Levied By The A.O U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act @ 150% Of The Amount Sought To Be Evaded By Reason Of Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars, Was Confirmed By The Cit(A) & Thus The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Along With An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Of 178 Days. In The Affidavit Filed Along With Form- 36, The Chairman & Chief Managing Director Of The Assessee Bank Deposed As Under: “Our Appeal Against The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act, For The A.Y 2011-12 Was Filed Before The Cit(A), Kurnool On 20.08.2014 & Was Duly Disposed Off & A Certified Copy Of The Appellate Order Was Also Served On Us. During The Process The Said Order Being Examined By Various

For Appellant: Shri G. SeshachalamFor Respondent: Shri Pathlevath Peerya

Section 271(1)(c)

immediately preceding year the assessee having admitted it as a mistake, in the year under consideration the assessee ought to have filed a revised return before detection by the revenue but no such step was taken by the assessee and thus the tax authorities were justified in holding that ... proceedings were taken up for year under 8 Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank. 1086/Hyd/2016. consideration and therefore the assessee ought to have atleast filed the revised return before it was detected by the revenue and thus the A.O was justified in levying penalty. 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions

DCIT (It) 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Channel V Music Networks Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 7253/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit (It)-4(2)(2), Room Channel V Music Networks Ltd. No. 1708, 17Th Floor, Air Vs. Partnership C/O Star India India Building, Nariman Private Ltd., Star House, Urmi Point, Mumbai-400021. Estate, 95, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaefc6136H Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. M.V. Rajguru, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Porus Kaka, Ar Date Of Hearing : 11/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/06/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Porus Kaka, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.V. Rajguru, DR

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

merely because the assessee has Channel V Music Networks 2 revised the return within the permitted time u/s. 139(5) without appreciating that the revised return was filed only after the issue of notice u/s 143(2)? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... ended on 30/06/2010 and the accounts were also finalised as per the audit report dated 03/05/2011 and hence there was inordinate delay in filing revised return on 29/03/2012 and hence the bonafide of the explanation of the assessee is not substantiated within the meaning of Explanation