“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

Chennai Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Chennai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2167/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Smt. Ruby George, CITFor Respondent: 08.03.2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A(3)Section 263

return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 electronically on 30.09.2009 admitting total income of Rs.31,45,31,341/- and subsequently filed revised return on 10.02.2010 admitting total income of Rs.38,55,67,390/- and for the assessment year 2010-11 the assessee filed its return of income electronically

Bekaert Industries P. Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2376/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2376/Pun/2012 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-09 Bekaert Industries Pvt. Ltd., Amar Paradigm, Near D Mart, S.No.110/11/3, Baner Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Baner, Pune - 411045 …. Pan: Aaacb8571E Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

For Appellant: Shri Danesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

case, the assessee had filed the return of income on 30.09.2008 declaring total loss of ₹ 7,72,20,145/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income declaring similar income. The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture of Steel Tyre Cord & Hose Reinforcement Wire. The assessee had entered

ACIT, Cir-47, Kolkata vs. Smt Sharmila Kumar, Howrah

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 679/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 May 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

also challenged the issue that assessment cannot be completed below the returned income and that admitted tax cannot be refunded as there is no revised return of income. 8. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had inherited UTI Mutual Fund amounting to Rs.21,88,300/- (Rs.16

DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kshirsagar Construction Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4450/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 68

accepted the mistake by filing a revised computation of income on 17/2/2014 during the course of assessment proceedings as the time for filing the revised return was already over and the fact that it has not preferred any appeal on the addition made by the AC, clearly shows the bona

M/S. Viklele Associates, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 752/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 10ASection 143(3)

offered to tax interest of Rs.2,46,450/- on fixed deposits under the head ‘income from other sources’. Later on, by way of revised return of income, it withdrew the said item and claimed entire income of Rs.28,71,956/- as liable for deduction under section

Matta Rekha, Bangalore, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals under consideration are partly allowed

ITA 694/HYD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

declared in sworn statement that she was in receipt of Rs. 2 lakhs per month in cash apart from salary. However, while filing the revised return of income, assessee has not disclosed the above Rs. 2 lakhs per month, but, disclosed additional income based on the bank deposits made during

Matta Rekha, Bangalore, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals under consideration are partly allowed

ITA 693/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Matta Rekha, Bangalore, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals under consideration are partly allowed

ITA 692/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Tamil Nadu Brick Industries, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 744/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.744/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 M/S. Tamilnadu Brick Industries, The Income Tax Officer, No. 47, Mangali Nagar 1St Street, Vs. Non Corporate Circle 8(1), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan: Aafft3643P] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Punna, Jr. Standing Counsel सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.05.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai, Dated 27.02.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 27.02.2017 In I.T.A.No.07/Cit(A)-9/2016-17 For The Above Mentioned Assessment Year Is Contrary To Law, Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Punna

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)(v)

contract. In spite of that, if such rare situations take place, the owner /transferor will not be without remedy. He can file a revised return and make out a case for exclusion or reduction of income. However, if the time-limit for filing a revised return expires, the difficulty will

DCIT - 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lafarge Aggregates & Concrete India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5977/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)

allowed the claim of deprecation by observing that assessee cannot 3 make a fresh claim without filing revise return of income in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). The CIT(A) allowed ... Private Ltd.(supra)the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that a fresh claim cannot be accepted by the AO otherwise than a revised return and the appellate authorities can accept the new claim made by the assessee. So, in our opinion, he FAA had rightly allowed the depreciation

ITO 2(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Transtec Overseas P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5308/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5308/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer बिधम/ M/S. Transtec Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 70, Podar Chambers, 3Rd 2(3)(3), Room No. 555, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Floor, S.A. Brelvi Marg, Road, New Marine Lines, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccp2309N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ashish Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.05.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.08.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay.2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Order To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing Relief To The Assessee To The Extent Impugned In The Grounds Enumerated Below:

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar (DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.69,31,997/- in original return of income which was subsequently enhanced to the tune of Rs.1,03,20,914/- in the revised return of income. The enhanced claim of deduction was raised on account of the amendment introduced u/s 10AA of the Act by Finance Act, 2010 w.e.f

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tauiran Iron & Steel Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1284/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.B. DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande-DR

Section 144CSection 254(1)

power. It also sells processed iron ore both in domestic and international market.It filed its return of income on 30/09/2009 and subsequently filed a revised return of income declaring total income of Rs.20.77 crores.Assessment was completed on 26/03/2013 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.28.98 crores u/s. 144C ... assessee after filing of the 'Return of income', as such a claim could only be entertained by him on the basis of a revised 'Return of income' filed by an assessee. 37. That on appeal the Ld. CIT(A) referring to the observations of the A.0 as regards the issue

Smt.Sajida Begum, Mysore vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Mysore

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

ITA 1230/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT (DR)

Section 144Section 54FSection 80U

case of Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT as reported in 284 ITR 323, no deduction can be claimed by the assessee without filing revised return of income. He submitted that this is by now a settled position of law that this judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered ... case of Goetz (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra), only the AO cannot entertain a new claim made by the assessee without filing revised return of income but as per this judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court, the CIT (A) and Tribunal has to decide on merit about any such claim

Siddharth Developers & Builders, Bijapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bijapur

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

ITA 2515/BANG/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Karthikeyan, IRS (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 264Section 44A

already filed. • The issue did not emanate from the assessment order in which only some small addition was made. The appellant assessed neither filed revised return which he could have or at least filed petition under sec.264 9. In light of the above facts and circumstances it is not possible

Waman Hari Pethe Sons Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 10 (3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 2730/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2730/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Waman Hari Pethe Sons बिाम/ Dcit 10(3),Mumbai Private Ltd,. 110, Vikas Paradise, V. Lbs Marg, Mulund (W), Mumbai 400080 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacw9453A (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Tikekar Shri Rahul Kelkar Revenue By : Shri Vidhyadhar (Sr.Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak TikekarFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyadhar (Sr.DR)

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

opening w.d.v. on 01-04- 2010, in respect of the building which was claimed @10%. Since the time allowed for filing of revised return of income u/s. 139(5) had already expired, the revised return of income could not be filed but the additional ... peace. It was submitted that based on the above filing of revised income for AY 2011-12 and payment of taxes, the assessee also revised return of income for AY 2012-13 and 2013-14 wherein claim for excess depreciation was withdrawn and due taxes paid to Revenue for those

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shraddha Constructions & Power Generation Pvt. Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 461/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.570/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

Section 132Section 132(4)

whether the fact that assessee had made an admission with respect to an addition / disallowance in its original return or in the revised return would ipso facto bar the assessee from claiming an expense or disputing an addition if it is otherwise permissible under law. This is so especially

ITO 17(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Vaswani Chambers, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5417/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Assessment Year : 2007-08 Ito 17(3)(5) Vaswani Chambers Mumbai 25, Sobani Road, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005. Pan Aaafv7924L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V VidhyadharFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Chaudhari

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

agree with the computation of the assessee in the impugned assessment year, the assessee agreed to the stand of the department and filed a revised return in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act by offering the amount claimed as deduction ... wrong claim of the assessee and re-opened the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act, the income offered by the assessee in the revised return would have remained concealed. Therefore, the assessee has clearly tried to furnish inaccurate particulars of income, which attracts the provisions of section

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Amber Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5176/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri, Amarjit Singh Jm Acit 25(1) Vs. M/S. Amber Enterprises Mumbai – 400 051 7, Taren Compound Behind Krishna Hotel Dahisar (E) Mumbai – 400 068 Pan/Gir No. Aalfa3071G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80B(10)(f)Section 80FSection 80I

information. A. Revised Portion: B. Revised Computation (1) the assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement In the return, he may furnish a revised return at any time before the 8 M/s. Amber Enterprises expiry of 1 year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before completion ... that if any deduction is required to be claimed through after filing of the return, it can be claimed through revised return only, In this case after filing revised return claim of deduction was put by letter. It may be noted here that intimation u/s. 143 (1) is not assessment

Tripat Kaur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1833/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

appeals by the assessee. 4. Assessee is challenging the penalty in these appeals mainly on two grounds firstly, contending that when the assessee filed revised return and the return filed by the assessee u/s 153A of the Act was accepted as such by the Ld. AO and that income disclosed ... assessee was given notice under Section 153A to file fresh return of his income. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised returns and the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A was accepted as such by the A.O. However, the A.O. was of the opinion that inasmuch that the income disclosed

Tripat Kaur, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1832/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274