← 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

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2015/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

INCOME, which he had initially erroneously offered in the return, which was withdrawn in time before receipt of the order by filing a revised return and the learned A.O. on his own has also not made any addition at all, in the exercise of his appellate powers, which apart from ... INCOME, which he had initially erroneously offered in the return, which was withdrawn in time before receipt of the order by filing a revised return and the learned A.O. on his own has also not made any addition at all, in the exercise of his appellate powers, which apart from

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2014/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

INCOME, which he had initially erroneously offered in the return, which was withdrawn in time before receipt of the order by filing a revised return and the learned A.O. on his own has also not made any addition at all, in the exercise of his appellate powers, which apart from ... INCOME, which he had initially erroneously offered in the return, which was withdrawn in time before receipt of the order by filing a revised return and the learned A.O. on his own has also not made any addition at all, in the exercise of his appellate powers, which apart from

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2013/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

INCOME, which he had initially erroneously offered in the return, which was withdrawn in time before receipt of the order by filing a revised return and the learned A.O. on his own has also not made any addition at all, in the exercise of his appellate powers, which apart from ... INCOME, which he had initially erroneously offered in the return, which was withdrawn in time before receipt of the order by filing a revised return and the learned A.O. on his own has also not made any addition at all, in the exercise of his appellate powers, which apart from

Praj Industries Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1490/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Maruti KadamFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 132(2)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

that the AO/CIT(A) is justified in levying the penalty as the assessee has offered the additional income during the search and filed the revised return consequent to search and no explanation whatsoever has been offered. Therefore, Ld. DR prayed for confirming the orders of the authorities below

The Deal India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2083/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2082 & 2083/Chny/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2006-2007 & 2010-2011. The Deal India Pvt. Ltd, The Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Boardex India Pvt. Ltd) Vs. Corporate Ward 1(1) B Block Ground Floor, Chennai 600 034. Sabari Sunny Side, 8/17, Shafee Mohammed Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aaccb 1457B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. J. Satish, C.A. & Shri. MFor Respondent: Mrs. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10B

Departmental Representative relying on the 3. very same judgment in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd (supra) submitted that assessee having not filed a revised return, could not be allowed to make a fresh claim. 4. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. It is not disputed

The Deal India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2082/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2082 & 2083/Chny/2017. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2006-2007 & 2010-2011. The Deal India Pvt. Ltd, The Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Boardex India Pvt. Ltd) Vs. Corporate Ward 1(1) B Block Ground Floor, Chennai 600 034. Sabari Sunny Side, 8/17, Shafee Mohammed Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan Aaccb 1457B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. J. Satish, C.A. & Shri. MFor Respondent: Mrs. Vijayaprabha, IRS, JCIT
Section 10ASection 10B

Departmental Representative relying on the 3. very same judgment in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd (supra) submitted that assessee having not filed a revised return, could not be allowed to make a fresh claim. 4. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. It is not disputed

Lalitha Devi, Kakinada vs. The ACIT, Rajahmundry

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 112/VIZ/2017[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Apr 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri P. Prabhakara MurthyFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal
Section 132Section 153CSection 54F

153A/153C of the Act for the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year in which search was conducted. The assessee has filed revised returns in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act and admitted the additional income disclosed during the course of search. The case has been selected

Lalitha Devi, Kakinada vs. The ACIT, Rajahmundry

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 111/VIZ/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Apr 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri P. Prabhakara MurthyFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal
Section 132Section 153CSection 54F

153A/153C of the Act for the six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year in which search was conducted. The assessee has filed revised returns in response to notice u/s 153A of the Act and admitted the additional income disclosed during the course of search. The case has been selected

Shri Dinesh Nagpal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (T& J), Jaipur

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

ITA 1017/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Him Even Though He Had All The Powers To Entertain Such Claim.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goyal & Shri Anurag Goyal (CAs)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)
Section 139(5)Section 54F

only issue arises in this appeal of the assessee is regarding denial of deduction under section 54F for want of filing the revised return of income. The assessee is an individual and running a Petrol Pump in the name of M/s. Saachi HP at Bassi Tehsil, Jaipur. The assessee filed ... gain earlier offered to tax. The AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has failed to file the revised return of income as per the provisions of section 139(5) and, therefore, the AO relied upon 3 Shri Dinesh Nagpal, Jaipur. the decision

DCIT, CC-4(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Lux Industries Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1016/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2010-2011

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

Section 139(5)

date as prescribed u/s. 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Though the AO accepted the revised return of the assessee, however, did not allow the revised claim of the assessee that the incentive from Govt. was capital. On appeal ... evident as to the object of the assistance under the subsidy scheme which the assessee claimed as incentive in its revised return of income. The nature of the incentive of Govt. of West Bengal can be ascertained only by taking note of the objective for which the subsidy scheme

DCIT, Cir-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S the Braithwaite Burn & Jessop Construction Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 994/KOL/2015[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 Dcit, Circle-1(2), V/S. M/S The Braithwaite Burn Aayakar Bhawan, Room & Jessop Construction Co. 14, 7Th Floor, P-7, Ltd. 27, R.N. Mukherjee Chowrnghee Square, Road, Kolkata-700 001 Kol-700 09 [Pan No.Aaact 9760 B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 18-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata Dated 20.03.2015. Assessment Was Framed By Acit, Circle-1, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 31.08.2006 For Assessment Year 2004-05. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.15,74,43,000/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Prior Period Expenses In Respect Of Closing Stock Of Raw Materials & Work In Progress. 2. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Modify The Grounds Of Appeal During The Course Of Hearing Proceedings Of This Case.”

Section 143(3)

assessee on the following grounds : 1. Expenses claims do not relate to the year under consideration. 2. The assessee should have filed the revised return of those years in which stock was overvalued. 3. There is no proper identification of stock and WIP which was overvalued. The claim made ... true and fair view of Financial Statements of the assessee in the year under consideration. There was no time available to file the revised return under the provisions of law as suggested by the AO to rectify the mistake. The AO failed to consider the Chartered Accountants report wherein

Bristlecone India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

ITA 4282/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4282/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Bristlecone India Limited Deputy Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Techniplex-1, Income Tax 2(1) बनाम/ Techniplex Complex Aaykar Bhavan Off Veer Savarkar Flyover M.K.Road Vs. Goregaon(W) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 062 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm-5186-E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: H.P.Mahajani & Prasad Bapat, Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Rajat Mittal, Ld. DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 251

deduction u/s 10A for Rs.406.08 Lacs as per Auditor’s certificate in Form 56F which was later revised downward to Rs.287.13 Lacs in the revised return of income on the basis of expense allocation 4 Bristlecone India Limited Assessment Year 2009-10 formulae adopted by Ld. CIT(A) in earlier

First Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) 1(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-

ITA 2909/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2909/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Vs. The Acit (Osd) 1(1)(3), M/S First Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 81-84, Lady Ratan Tata Medical Mumbai - 400020 & Research Centre, Maharshi Karve Road, Cooperage, Mumbai - 400021 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf0765E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.C. Gandhi (Ar) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri R.C. Gandhi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR)
Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

bona fide error has been rectified and the tax was paid as per the income computed under the MAT provisions. The AO accepted the revised return of income of the assessee however, initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. During penalty proceedings, representative of the assessee ... return filed by the assessee? We notice that the AO has levied the penalty in question holding that since the assessee has filed the revised return after receiving of notice u/s 148 of the Act, the action of the assessee cannot be treated as voluntary disclosure. We notice that

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tariff Advisory Committee General Insurance, Mumbai

ITA 5342/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin -DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

income and expenditure account,that the accounts of the assessee were audited by the office of the Indian Audit and Accountant General, that a revised return was filed declaring Loss of Rs.5.879 crores, that the assessee had claimed exemption of Rs.9.13 crores u/s. 10(23BBE)of the Act.As

N.Ragothaman, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 220/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

notice dated 26.03.2014 on credit card :-3-: ITA Nos. 216 TO 220 & 112/Chny/2017 sales issue for assessment year 2012-13, the assessee filed a revised return revising his total income at Rs.9,37,860/-, as against the total income admitted in the original return at Rs.1 ... revised return, the assessee estimated @ 5% on the value of shortage of stock found at the time of survey at Rs.1,28,76,500/-. After affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, the Assessing Officer held , inter alia, that the revised return filed by the assessee is an afterthought and assessed

N.Ragothaman, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 219/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

notice dated 26.03.2014 on credit card :-3-: ITA Nos. 216 TO 220 & 112/Chny/2017 sales issue for assessment year 2012-13, the assessee filed a revised return revising his total income at Rs.9,37,860/-, as against the total income admitted in the original return at Rs.1 ... revised return, the assessee estimated @ 5% on the value of shortage of stock found at the time of survey at Rs.1,28,76,500/-. After affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, the Assessing Officer held , inter alia, that the revised return filed by the assessee is an afterthought and assessed

N.Ragothaman, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 218/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

notice dated 26.03.2014 on credit card :-3-: ITA Nos. 216 TO 220 & 112/Chny/2017 sales issue for assessment year 2012-13, the assessee filed a revised return revising his total income at Rs.9,37,860/-, as against the total income admitted in the original return at Rs.1 ... revised return, the assessee estimated @ 5% on the value of shortage of stock found at the time of survey at Rs.1,28,76,500/-. After affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, the Assessing Officer held , inter alia, that the revised return filed by the assessee is an afterthought and assessed

N.Ragothaman, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 217/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

notice dated 26.03.2014 on credit card :-3-: ITA Nos. 216 TO 220 & 112/Chny/2017 sales issue for assessment year 2012-13, the assessee filed a revised return revising his total income at Rs.9,37,860/-, as against the total income admitted in the original return at Rs.1 ... revised return, the assessee estimated @ 5% on the value of shortage of stock found at the time of survey at Rs.1,28,76,500/-. After affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, the Assessing Officer held , inter alia, that the revised return filed by the assessee is an afterthought and assessed

N.Ragothaman, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 216/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

notice dated 26.03.2014 on credit card :-3-: ITA Nos. 216 TO 220 & 112/Chny/2017 sales issue for assessment year 2012-13, the assessee filed a revised return revising his total income at Rs.9,37,860/-, as against the total income admitted in the original return at Rs.1 ... revised return, the assessee estimated @ 5% on the value of shortage of stock found at the time of survey at Rs.1,28,76,500/-. After affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, the Assessing Officer held , inter alia, that the revised return filed by the assessee is an afterthought and assessed

ITO, Chennai vs. N.Ragothaman, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 112/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 54F

notice dated 26.03.2014 on credit card :-3-: ITA Nos. 216 TO 220 & 112/Chny/2017 sales issue for assessment year 2012-13, the assessee filed a revised return revising his total income at Rs.9,37,860/-, as against the total income admitted in the original return at Rs.1 ... revised return, the assessee estimated @ 5% on the value of shortage of stock found at the time of survey at Rs.1,28,76,500/-. After affording adequate opportunity to the assessee, the Assessing Officer held , inter alia, that the revised return filed by the assessee is an afterthought and assessed