← 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

L & T Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. JCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3758/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Dr. A.L. Sainil&T Finance Ltd. Taxation Department L&T House, N.M. Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacl8668G V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2), Mumbai L&T Finance Ltd. Taxation Department L&T House, N.M. Marg ……………. Appellant Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aaacl8668G V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala a/wFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh a/w

assessee filed its return of income on 29th September 2008, declaring total income of ` 128,89,66,614. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 7th March 2009. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has offered short term capital gain

ACIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Tenneco Automative India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3226/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3226/Chny/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Acit, Vs M/S. Tenneco Automotive India Corporate Circle 3(1), Pvt. Ltd., Tidel Park, Di South, 9Th Floor, Chennai – 34. 4, Canal Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. Pan: Aabct3125D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: 17.05.2018
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

admitting loss of Rs.20,46,03,121/-. Initially the return was processed U/s.143(1) of the Act and subsequently the assessee filed revised return on 15.03.2012 admitting loss of Rs.20,46,61,439/-. Thereafter assessment was completed U/s.143(3) of the Act on 21.05.2014 determining loss of Rs.16

ITO 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rak Construciton Project P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1247/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhito-3(3)(1), M/S Rak Construction Project Pvt. Mumbai. Ltd. 113-A, Mittal Tower, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aacck8147P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)For Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Construction Project Pvt. Ltd. refund. The assessee has not offered the same in the return of income nor filed any revised return of income. Thus, the assessee has willfully furnished inaccurate particular of income leading concealment of income to the extent of Rs. 33,60,000/-. The penalty was deleted

Toshvin Analytical P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 804/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj Gurjar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 154

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that the appellant had not filed Revised Return of Income within prescribed time limit while adjudicating the additional ground vide rectification order dated 15/07/2016 which was received by assessee on 18/08/2017. 4. Reasons ... allowed for statistical purposes. 5. The issue raised in ground No.3 is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) holding that the revised return was not filed within the prescribed time while adjudicating the additional ground in the rectification order dated 15.07.2016 received by the assessee

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Aditya Durobuild Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6056/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa.Y. 2011-12 M/S Aditya Durobuild Acit, Central Circle 12 Vs. Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi R/O A-14, Lgf Kailash Colony Delhi 110 048 Pan: Aaeca9706A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 80Section 80I

held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that once the assessee files ITA No.6056/Del/2014 A.Y.:2011-12 ACIT vs. Aditya Durobuild Pvt.Ltd. a revised return u/s 153A, no occasion would arise to refer to the previous return filed u/s 139 of the Act. Therefore, we find no reason

M/S. M. Lodha Impex, Ratlam vs. The ITO-1, Ratlam

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

ITA 185/IND/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. No. 185/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2000-01 M/S.M.Lodha Impex, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 117-118, Manak Chowk, Ward 1, Ratlam. Ratlam.

For Appellant: Shri Satiksh Solanki, DRFor Respondent: 29.05.2018
Section 119(1)(b)Section 119(2)(b)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234A

deriving income from manufacturing of Umbrella. The return of Income declaring total loss of Rs. 5075/- has been filed on 30-10-2000 and revised return claiming refund of TDS of Rs.175815/- was filed on 09-04-2001.The assesse also filed rectification u/s 154 on 3/11/2004. Then assesse filed application ... assessee -: 6 :- M.LODHA IMPEX,RATLAM. after the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished. " 2.1Revised return is within due date as per the act The assesse filed the revised return on 09/04/2001 vide receipt no.0027 enclosing the TDS form

M/S Keti Sangam Infrastructure (I) Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT (Central), Indore

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 1341/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

before it Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. could be detected. 21. The correct and accurate disclosure may be by filing the revised return or by furnishing the particulars of such income before the detection by the AO. The mere fact that the assessee had not revised returns

M/S Shree Coal Enterprises (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 1337/IND/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

before it Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. could be detected. 21. The correct and accurate disclosure may be by filing the revised return or by furnishing the particulars of such income before the detection by the AO. The mere fact that the assessee had not revised returns

Sri Sri Gonesh Jew Thakur Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 938/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

considered by him to be erroneous. Further, the assessee had also brought to the knowledge of the Ld. CIT(E) that in its revised return for AY 2015-16, the assessee trust had included the said tax refund as its income and, therefore, even the reason ... payment could not have been considered by the AO since such claim was not made either in the return of income or in the revised return but only by way of revised computation. The ld. CIT(E) therefore, held that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Mangal Keshav Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 209/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Dr. A.L. Saini, Hon’Blemangal Keshav Securities Ltd., Vs. Dcit-4(3)(2), (Erstwhile Known As Mangal Mumbai. Keshav Holdings Ltd.) 501, Heritage Plaza, J.P. Road, Opp. Indian Oil Colony, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Pan No. Aaecm 6524 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agarwal–CAFor Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Rai – DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Diamond India Pvt. Ltd. wherein it is mentioned that the transactions were done with the assessee, and TDS thereon was deducted as per the revised return for quarter-4 and they had rectified the mistake. Similarily, vide paper book at page No. 16, M/s Dawan Infrastructure Ltd. had provided

Asst CIT 24(2), Mumbai vs. Mita Dipak Shah, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is allowed

ITA 1391/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Dr. A.L. Sainiasstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–24(2), Mumbai V/S Smt. Mita Dipak Shah 31–B, 1St Floor, Laxmi Estate ……………. Respondent Azad Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 069 Pan – Afbps112A

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 10(38)

return of income for the impugned assessment year on 21st July 2012, declaring total income of ` 34,25,305. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 23rd October 2013, declaring income of ` 35,54,820. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer while verifying the return of income ... rival submissions and perused materials on record. As could be seen from the revised computation of income filed by the assessee along with the revised return of income, a copy of 8 Smt. Mita Dipak Shah which is at Page–12 of the paper book and the Income and Expenditure

ITO (It) 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5644/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito-(It)-2(3)(1), Mumbai Mrs. Pamela Pritam Ghosh, C/O 17Th Floor, Room No. 1727, C C Dayal & Co. Cas. Jeevan Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Udyog, 278, D.D. Road, Fort, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Acapg8593Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. S. Padmaja, Cit (Dr) Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, Ar Date Of Hearing : 18/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/06/2018. Order Per N.K. Pradhan, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2011-12. The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [In Short ‘Cit(A)’]And Arises Out Of The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (The ‘Act’). 2. The Grounds Of Appeals Read As Under: 1. Whether On Facts & Circumstance Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Deduction Under Section 54 For Investment Of Capital Gain In Purchase Of New Residential House In Australia & Thus Allowing The Shifting

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay V. Kalwint, ARFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(4)

original return of income on 20.06.2011 in which she had not claimed any exemption u/s 54 of the Act. Subsequently, she filed the revised return of income on 24.07.2012 in which exemption u/s 54 was claimed for Rs.3,52,69,829/- being cost of house purchased in Australia. The information ... that the house was purchased in Australia was mentioned in the revised computation of LTCG on sale of house property filed with the revised return of income. However, the AO denied the benefit of exemption u/s 54 by observing that the same is not available in respect of house purchased

The Greater Bombay Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 1(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5288/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blethe Greater Bombay Co-Op Bank Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 1(3)(3) 89, Gbcb House, Bhuleshwar, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 002

For Appellant: Shri A.L. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Section 143(3)

outset submitted that assessee though in the original return of income it had claimed contingent provision for standard assets as deduction, in the revised return the assessee has withdrawn the claim and computed the loss at ₹.1,18,37,283/-. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that, the Assessing Officer ... once again disallowed and added back provision for standard assets amounting to ₹.1,91,32,172/-. When the Assessing Officer acted upon the second revised return wherein the assessee withdrawn his claim once again disallowing the provision for standard assets while computing the income by the Assessing Officer amount

Asst CIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Citygold Investments P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4160/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleasst. Cit – 9(2)(2) V. M/S. City Gold Investments P. Ltd., R.No. 665A, 6Th Floor, Akruti Trade Centre, Road No. 7, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marol, Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 093

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms S. Padmaja
Section 139Section 3Section 40

provisions of chapter XVII of the Act, that later on it withdrew the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) in the revised return, that it relied upon the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Ltd.(293 ITR 226), that the AO and the FAA held that facts ... statute book with effect from 01/04/2013, that the act of the assessee of deleting the addition under section 40(a)(ia) in the revised return for the assessment year 2012-13 was not in consonance with the judgment of the Hon’ble of Apex Court or the Act, that

M/S. Bnb Investment & Properties Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, ITA.No.504/Del

ITA 504/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)

return declaring total income of Rs.2,08,95,242/- on 28.09.2012. In response to notice under section 153A(1) (a] r.w.s 153C, assessee filed revised return declaring total income of Rs. 2,22,43,593/-. Assessment was framed at Rs. 5,22,43,593/- by making addition of Rs.3 crores

Shri Ranjan Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, ITA.No.504/Del

ITA 503/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 153Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)

return declaring total income of Rs.2,08,95,242/- on 28.09.2012. In response to notice under section 153A(1) (a] r.w.s 153C, assessee filed revised return declaring total income of Rs. 2,22,43,593/-. Assessment was framed at Rs. 5,22,43,593/- by making addition of Rs.3 crores

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Uniword Telecom Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the

ITA 2660/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavauniword Telecom Ltd. Acit C/O. Satish Aggarwal & Range-18 Associates, Ca, New Delhi 4/5, Asaf Ali Road Vs. New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Aggarwal, Sh. Dharender Kr., CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 15Section 40Section 80G

processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny thereafter revised return of income was filed declaring income at Rs. 68,21,192/-. During the relevant previous year, the assessee company was engaged in manufacture and trading ... legal notice on the assessee demanding an amount of Rs. 20,17,90,844/-. The assessee in view of this developments filed a revised return and sought to reduce its income by an amount of Rs. 2,17,86,841/- on the ground that this income had not accrued

Uniword Telecom Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the

ITA 2417/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastavauniword Telecom Ltd. Acit C/O. Satish Aggarwal & Range-18 Associates, Ca, New Delhi 4/5, Asaf Ali Road Vs. New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Aggarwal, Sh. Dharender Kr., CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 15Section 40Section 80G

processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The case was selected for scrutiny thereafter revised return of income was filed declaring income at Rs. 68,21,192/-. During the relevant previous year, the assessee company was engaged in manufacture and trading ... legal notice on the assessee demanding an amount of Rs. 20,17,90,844/-. The assessee in view of this developments filed a revised return and sought to reduce its income by an amount of Rs. 2,17,86,841/- on the ground that this income had not accrued

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Praveen Chand Khanna & Sons (HUF), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1165/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jain, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Smt. Lalitha Krishnamurthy, C.A. &
Section 139(5)Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 6

furnish the qualifying document for claiming exemption of capital gain and such revised computation cannot be entertained, because assessee was required to file revised return u/s.139(5) which time has also elapsed. Accordingly, he denied the claim of exemption of Long Term Capital Gain and taxed the entire receipt ... assessee for seeking exemption from Long Term Capital Gain was not in accordance with law as it was not claimed in the revised return of income and therefore, penalty has rightly been levied by the Assessing Officer. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 6 I.T.A. No.1165/Del/2016

Sh. Gagan Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2425/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. B.R. Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 44A

that the assessee filed his return declaring income of Rs.1.97,800/-. Such return was subsequently revised showing income of Rs.2,98,352/-. In such revised return, the assessee offered a sum of Rs.99,152/- being, income under section 44AF @ 5% of retail trade sale of Rs.19,83,041/-. In addition ... delete the peak addition made by the learned CIT(A). The net effect of above adjudication is that the income declared in the revised return to the tune of Rs.2,98,352/- gets accepted. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order pronounced in the open court