“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

Bhavanasi Anjaneyulu vs. The ACIT, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 261/VIZ/2017[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 Jan 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.261, 262 & 263/Vizag/2017 (धनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09) Bhavanasi Anjaneyulu Acit, Central Circle Guntur Vijayawada [Pan No.Acjpb0329C] (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्याथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Debakumar Sonowal

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

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

Mr.Babu Mathew, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 96/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

under section 133A was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 19/03/2011. As a result of the survey the assessee filed a revised return on 31/08/2010 with a total income of Rs.1,07,37,350/- which includes the additional income admitted by the assessee during the survey amounting ... assessee. In a number of decisions, including that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 186 ITR 571, it has been held that revised return does not mitigate the default under section 271(1)(c). The assessee was under a statutory obligation to file the return of income within

Mr.Babu Mathew, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 95/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari , Am & George George K., Jm

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

DCIT, Cir-2, Jalpaiguri vs. M/S Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Coochbihar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 706/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: : Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Md. Usman, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 154Section 5Section 80P

assessee did not claim the deduction u/s 80P of the Act in the return of income originally filed on 30.07.2005 and without there being revised return, the AO rightly denied the deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The Ld. DR further submits that the CIT(A) has no power ... raised before the appellate authority wherein the said authorities can direct the AO to consider the same in the absence of any revised return and supported the order of CIT(A). He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. reported

Chetan Khara, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-34(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 682/KOL/2014[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jan 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy]

Section 142Section 148Section 250

adequate opportunity, passed an order u/s 143(3) of the Act, making additions and that the Assessing Officer has committed errors, as in the revised returns, the assessee declared short term capital gains as Rs.90,352/-, whereas the Assessing Officer considered the amount at Rs.42,840/-, which was an erroneous

Addl CIT RG 24(1), Mumbai vs. Arun Damji Gada, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 105/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Shri Arun Damji Gada Vs. Acit 24(1) A-103, God Gift Adarsha Pratyshakar Bhawan Dugdhalaya Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex Adarsh Nagar, Adarsh Dhughala Bandra (E) Lane, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 050 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No.Aabpg3923F Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit 24(1) Vs. Shri Arun Damji Gada C-13 R/Nop, 503 A-103, God Gift Adarsha Pratyshakar Bhawan Dugdhalaya Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex Adarsh Nagar, Adarsh Bandra (E) Dhughala Lane, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 050 Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No. Aabpg3923F Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 80I

Supreme Court in the case of Kedarnath Jute Mfg Co Ltd vs CIT [ (1971) 82 ITR 363 in this case assessee filed revised return claiming Sales tax demand as provision expenditure even though assessee had filed sales tax appeal —AO did not allow such exp because no provision was made

DCIT - 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kuoni Travels (I) Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, Ground no.5 & 6 of the appeal are dismissed

ITA 1924/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran,Accountant Mamber & Shri Pawan Singhdcit 3(3)(1), M/S Sotc Travel Services Pvt. Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Ltd. (Previously Known As Kuoni Aayakar Bhavan, Travels (India) Pvt. Ltd.),Now Mumbai-400020. Vs. Merged With Travel Corporation (India) Ltd. Kuoni House, N.F. Road, Behind Taj Mahal Hotel, Colaba, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacs0170L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Sotc Travel Services Pvt. Dcit 3(3)(1), Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Ltd. (Previously Known As Kuoni Travels (India) Pvt. Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd.),Now Merged With Travel Mumbai-400020. Corporation (India) Ltd. Kuoni Vs. House, N.F. Road, Behind Taj Mahal Hotel, Colaba, Mumbai-400001 Pan: Aaacs0170L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja CIT –DR with & with Ms Pooja Swaroop ( Sr

Section 253Section 254(1)Section 80HSection 8O

Travel agent, filed its return of income for relevant AY on 28.12.2002 declaring total income of Rs. 12,13,39,305/-. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 30.03.2004 declaring total income of Rs. 11,75,79,781/-. In the revised return, the assessee claimed the deduction

Suresh Raghuraman, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 365/CHNY/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri, M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Mr.P.Radhakrishnan,JCIT,D.RFor Respondent: 16-01-2018

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

inaccurate particulars of his income. It vanished before it could be detected. 21. The correct and accuraye disclosure may be by filing the revised return or by furnishing the particulars of such income before the detection by the Assessing Officer. The mere fact that the assessee had not revised returns

Priti Devendra Shah, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1511/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1508 To 1511/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 132Section 153C

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

Priti Devendra Shah, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1510/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 132Section 153C

Priti Devendra Shah, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1509/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 132Section 153C

Priti Devendra Shah, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the 3 appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1508/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 132Section 153C

DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Indiana Engineering Works(Bombay) P.Lt, Mumbai

ITA 999/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.999/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Indiana Engineering Works (Bombay) Private Limited Income Tax 10(1)(1) बनाम/ 1, Indian House R.No.209,Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Narol Naka, Andheri (E) M.K.Road Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaci-1465-N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Dr.K.Shivram & Rahul Hakani, Ld.ARsFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged in manufacturing of engineering goods and fabrication works was assessed for impugned AY at Rs.350.86 Lacs as against revised returned income of Rs.256.12 Lacs e-filed by the assessee. 2.2 During assessment proceedings it was noted that the assessee earned income from generation

ACIT 16(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Media & Communicaton Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 772/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.772/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. बनाम/ 16(1) In Centre, 49/50,Midc,12Th Road Room No.439, Aaykar Bhavvan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-1198-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1167/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- बनाम/ In Centre, 49/50,Midc,12Th Road 16(1) Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 Room No.439, Aaykar Bhavvan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaaci-1198-L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Mihir Nanavdekar,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

books of account. Further, the assessee did not claim the balance Rs.60 Lacs either in computation of income or by filing the revised return of income but claimed the same during the course of assessment proceedings before Ld. AO. It is quite evident from the order

Indusind Media & Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(1), Mumbai

ITA 1167/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Mihir Nanavdekar,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 32(2)

India Medtronic Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 10(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1600/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Jehangir Mistry, Hiren ChandeFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar- DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 254(1)

return of income on 30/09/2010,declaring total income of Rs.47.07 crores under normal provisions and of Rs.47.76 crores u/s.115JB of the Act. Subsequently,a revised return was filed showing income of Rs. 46.53 cr. However, the book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act remained the same. 2.Vide its application dated

Standard Tin Works P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4852/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 194CSection 40

that the assessee filed its return of income on 31.12.2006 declaring loss to the tune of Rs.16,64,272/-. Thereafter the assessee filed the revised return on 29.03.2007 declaring loss to the tune of Rs.1,99,005/-. The return was processed

Pepperl & Fuchs (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for asst

ITA 1282/BANG/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S. P. Chidambaram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, ACIT (D.R)

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)

Profits’ were computed under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') at Nil. On 31.3.2006, the assessee filed a revised return of income declaring Nil income, claiming deduction of Rs.34,08,890 under Section 10B of the Act before set off of brought forward loss

ACIT, Hisar vs. M/S. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Hisar

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 5743/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Krishnan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(2)Section 147

which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as Act) on 11.10.2006. The assessee filed revised return declaring loss of Rs. 222,90,10,540/- on 18.10.2006 which was also processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 28.12.2006. Thereafter the assessee still filed ... another revised return on 22.3.2007 declaring loss to the tune of Rs. 124,33,57,290/- which was also processed on 30.3.2007. AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 19.11.2007 at a returned loss of Rs. 124,33,57,290/- and unabsorbed business loss and depreciation

Anc Securities Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Kolkata

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

ITA 1873/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1873/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Anc Securities Ltd. -Vs- Acit, Circle-4, Kolkata [Pan: Aacca 2684 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.K.Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 72

made any claim of set off of brought forward losses of assessment year 2009-10 either in the original return or in the revised return filed by it. Hence, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India vs. CIT reported ... section 72 of the Act. Even though the assessee has not made this claim either in its original return of income or in the revised return of income, it is incumbent on the part of the Ld. CIT(A) to direct the Ld. AO to consider the legitimate claim