“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

Joonktollee Tea & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata

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

ITA 771/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 771/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Joonktollee Tea & Industries Ltd...............................…………………………...Appellant 21, Strand Road, Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Aaacj 6577 G] D.C.I.T., Cir – 4, Kolkata...................……………………………………………...Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, 8Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri B.K. Chaturvedi, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 31, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 6, Kolkata Dated 22.02.2016. 2. The Issue Involved In Ground No 1 Relates To The Disallowance Made By The A.O. Under Section 14A Read With Rule 8D Which Is Sustained By The Ld. Cit(A) To The Extent Of Rs. 22,91,567/-. 3. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Cultivation & Manufacture Of Tea At Its Estates Situated In The Stataes Of Assam & Karnataka. It Also Owns Coffee Estate In The State Of Karnataka & Tamil Nadu. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By It On 20.09.2011 Declaring A Loss Of Rs. 38,69,233/- & Book Profit Of Rs. 74,11,410/-

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

771/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Joonktollee Tea & Idustries Ltd. under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thereafter the assessee filed a revised return on 14.03.2012 declaring a loss of Rs. 54,46,806/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee company had earned a dividend income

Peeveear Electricals, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-26, Kolkata

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

ITA 1137/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)

return of income for the year under consideration was originally filed by it on 30.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.84,90,910/-. Thereafter a revised return was filed by the assessee on 07.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.25,14,194/-. A letter dated 04.12.2012 was also filed by the Assessment

Tml Drivelines Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5256/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Tiwari

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

under dispute, assessee filed its return of income on 30th October 2007 declaring total income of ` 72,82,77,921. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 29th September 2008, declaring total income of ` 72,06,36,526. The return of income filed by the assessee was subjected

Everest Industires Ltd, New Delhi vs. JCIT RG 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed and the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 3804/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

find that the assessee had claimed that sales tax incentives received by it had to be treated as capital receipt in the revised return filed by it. The AO and the FAA had rejected its claim. The matter of RIL, relied upon by the assessee, has been sent back

Addl CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai vs. The Inidan Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 841/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., The Additional Commissioner Of Mandlik House, Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Mandlik Road, Colaba, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400001 Vs. Mumbai Pan: Aaact3957G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Additional Commissioner Of The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Mandlik House, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mandlik Road, Colaba, Room No. 545, 5Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai - 400001 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaact3957G (Appellant) (Respondent) & Co No. 169/Mum/2010 Assessment Year: 2005-06 The Indian Hotels Company Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Mandlik House, Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Mandlik Road, Apollo Bunder, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400001 Vs. Mumbai Pan: Aaact3957G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pratik Shah(Ar) Revenue By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2018 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Shah(AR)For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR)

Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 43BSection 92C

declaring the total income of Rs. 51,26,70,391/-. The return was processed u/s 143 (1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return declaring income of Rs. 49,96,78,100/-. Since, the case was selected for scrutiny notice u/s 142 (1), calling for the information

State Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 2(2)

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4736/MUM/2010[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhstate Bank Of India Acit Circle (2)(2), Financial Reporting, Compliance & Mumbai. Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Circle (2)(2), State Bank Of India Mumbai. Financial Reporting, Compliance & Taxation Department, 19Th Floor, Vs. Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400021. Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)

Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

fact that exclusion of the exchange gain from the total income was claimed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings without filing the revised return as was required keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs CIT as reported

ACIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai vs. State Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4598/MUM/2010[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 1999-00

For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)

Section 14ASection 195Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 43D

The Indian Hotels Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 371/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Shah(AR)For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR)

Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 43BSection 92C

Dnyanoba Shajirao Jadhav, Latur vs. Income-Tax Officer

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

ITA 168/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 23Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

original return of income for the impugned assessment year on 10-10-2011 declaring total income of Rs.8,06,540/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 27-03-2012 declaring total income of Rs.34,54,859/-. The assessee again revised his return of income ... assessee on 07-08-2013. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee in his second revised return of income has claimed total amount of compensation including interest as exempt u/s. 10(37) of the Act. The Assessing Officer following the decision

Income-Tax Officer vs. Sharp Designer and Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1262/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2263/Pun/2014 आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं आयकरअपीलसं िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

respectively. 2. In all these 3 appeals, the issue of allowability of (1) the deduction u/s.80IA of the Act claimed through filing of the revised return of income, (2) the correctness of the disallowance made by the AO u/s.40A(2)(b) of the Act and (3) the correctness ... electricity through windmill. Assessee made a claim of deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act amounting to Rs.77,62,555/- by way of filing the revised return of income u/s.139(5) of the Act. Admittedly, the assessee could not claim the same in the original return filed u/s.139

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Sharp Designers & Engineers India Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2283/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

Sharp Designers and Engineers India P. Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2263/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

Shri Siyaram Yadav, Mainpuri vs. ITO 2(5), Mainpuri

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 117/AGR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292BSection 50CSection 68

copy placed on record), dated 23.01.2009, is of no help to the Department. In that matter, the AO had not entertained the revised return filed by the assessee, which, as noted, is not the case herein. The proposition in ‘Ram Chandra’ (supra) is also not 8. applicable here

Ganesh Chawla, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 452/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” Sh. Genesh Chawla Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Podar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena

Section 54F

whereas the assessee has not sold residential house and therefore, the assessee has made a claim of exemption u/s 54F without filing the revised return. The AO has specifically given a finding that the assessee has failed to produce the supporting evidence for Rs. 18,00,000/- of the expenditure

B.G. Sharma (Deceased) ( by L/H Shri Mukesh B Sharma), Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 387/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhb. G. Sharma (Deceased) Ito 14(3)(1), (By His L/H Shri Mukesh B. Mumbai. Sharma), C/O. Sharma Picture Publication, Vallabhdas Kanji Vs. Bldg., 175 Princess Street, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Adups8279E (Appellant) (Respondent) B. G. Sharma (Deceased) Ito 14(3)(1), (By His L/H Shri Mukesh B. Mumbai. Sharma), C/O. Sharma Picture Publication, Vallabhdas Kanji Vs. Bldg., 175 Princess Street, Mumbai-400002. Pan: Adups8279E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

legal heir with a slightly enhanced income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment at a much higher figure than what was shown in the revised return. On appeal, the legal heir contended that the assessment had been framed against a dead person and was, therefore, void ab initio. The Commissioner

Usha Rani Kalidindi, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 824/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

information about transactions of properties situated at Banjara Hills, followed to questionnaire u/s 142(1) which was issued on 28.08.2008. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return on 18.11.2008 admitting sale consideration as per market value u/s 5OC. Assessee also claimed deductions u/s 54 in revised return, which was not claimed

The Andhra Bank Employees'S Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result the assessee appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1132/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S The Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle-2(3), Employee’S Cooperative Hyderabad. Bank Ltd., Hyderabad. Pan- Aabct6347B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.C. Devdas Smt Suman Malik Revenue By :

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

income for the A.Y 2010-11 on 14-10-2010 declaring a total income of Rs. 69,18,340/-. Subsequently, assessee filed its revised return of income on 02-05-2011 declaring a total income of Rs. 35,26,550/-. The original return was processed ... During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act the A.O called for various details. The A.O observed that the assessee has filed revised return of income on 02-05-2011 for the reason that in the original return of income, it had included provisions written back

K. Bala Vishnu Raju, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 825/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

M/S Rajasthan Fort & Palace Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the asessee are allowed

ITA 597/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

153C cannot be interpreted to be a further innings for the AO and/or assessee beyond provisions of Sections 139 (return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. 26. The plea raised on behalf of the assessee that

Tamilnadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1160/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. SailendraMamidi. Pr. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Tamilnadu Enterprise incorporated for the purpose of promoting and developing industries in the State of Tarnilnadu. For ay 2009-10, the assessee filed its revised return declaring an income of Rs.69,00,36,070. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment disallowing provision for interest expenses at Rs.7 ... order dt 20.03.2017 in ITA Nos.524/CIT(A) -13/2009- 2010- 11 dismissed the appeal. For the ay 2010-11, the assessee filed its revised return for a y 2010-11 declaring an income of Rs.16,49,69,820/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) and arrived