← 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

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Albert David Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1305/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1305/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 D.C.I.T, Cir-10(1), Kolkata..............................…………………………………................Appellant P-7, Chowringhee Square, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069 M/S. Albert David Ltd....…………………………………………………….........................Respondent 15, Chittranjan Avenue, Kolkata – 700 072 [Pan: Aacca 3933 D] Appearances By: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 12 , 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(Appeals) – 4, Kolkata Dated 29.03.2016 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Deletion By The Ld. Cit(A) Of The Addition Of Rs. 85,34,346/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Assessee’S Claim For Additional Depreciation Of Moulds. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Pharmaceutical Products. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Originally Filed By It On 29.09.2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 11,54,94,310/-. Thereafter A Revised Return Was Filed By The Assessee On 26.03.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 11,86,54,770/-. In The Assessment Completed Under Section 143(3) Vide An Order Dated

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 32Section 37(1)

year under consideration was originally filed by it on 29.09.2012 declaring a total income of Rs. 11,54,94,310/-. Thereafter a revised return was filed by the assessee on 26.03.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 11,86,54,770/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide

DCIT 8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Noshir Talati, Mumbai

ITA 3856/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Mr. Noshir Talati, Income-Tax-8(3)(1), Level 6, Ceejay House, Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Vs. Shivsagar Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaapt6890R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri, A.R. Revenue By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, D.R
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263

short facts of the case are that assessee has filed the return declaring total income at Rs.67,87,938/-, subsequently a revised return was filed on 09.10.2006 declaring total income at Rs.88,49,940/- and assessment order was passed under section 143 2 Mr. Noshir Talati read with section

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Dena Bank, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2010-

ITA 1407/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit – 2(3)(1), M/S Dena Bank, Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Accounts Department, Aayakar Bhavan, Dena Bank Building, M.K. Road, Vs. 2Nd Floor, 17-B, Mumbai - 400020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 400023 Pan: Aaacd4249D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Ananthan (Dr) Assessee By : Smt. Lalitha Rameshwaran( Ar) Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/01/2018

For Appellant: Smt. Lalitha Rameshwaran( AR)For Respondent: Shri Ananthan (DR)
Section 115JSection 142Section 143

115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143 (2) was served on the assessee. The assessee filed a revised return declaring the revised income of Rs. 2,25,98,20,186/- under the normal provisions of the Act and ‘nil’ income u/s 115JB

Dr. K.Vanaja, Warangal, Hanamkonda vs. ACIT, Cirlce-1, Warangal

ITA 1020/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.V. Chalamaiah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta, DR
Section 48Section 50C

wherein market value was considered at Rs. 55,12,000/-. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessee had indeed filed a revised return on 22-12-2009, admitting the Short Term Capital Gain as worked out by the AO, accepting the deemed sale consideration u/s. 50C of the Act. However ... reasons best known to the AO, he rejected the revised return filed as it was filed after the due date, but computed the income considering the deemed sale consideration at Rs. 27,56,000/- in each case and allowing purchase cost of Rs. 12,11,435/-. 3. Before the Ld.CIT

Dr. M. Muniprasad, Warangal, Hanamkonda vs. ACIT, Cirlce-1, Warangal

ITA 1019/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.V. Chalamaiah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta, DR
Section 48Section 50C

wherein market value was considered at Rs. 55,12,000/-. In the course of assessment proceedings, assessee had indeed filed a revised return on 22-12-2009, admitting the Short Term Capital Gain as worked out by the AO, accepting the deemed sale consideration u/s. 50C of the Act. However ... reasons best known to the AO, he rejected the revised return filed as it was filed after the due date, but computed the income considering the deemed sale consideration at Rs. 27,56,000/- in each case and allowing purchase cost of Rs. 12,11,435/-. 3. Before the Ld.CIT

JCIT, (OSD), Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Itc Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeal of revenue and CO of assessee are dismissed

ITA 656/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 43B

filed its return of income on 27.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs.3041,42,53,870/- but subsequently filed 2 ITC Ltd., AY 2006-07 revised return on 19.03.2008 declaring total income of Rs.3040,47,74,966/-. Consequently, assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... circumstances of the case. We find that the excise duty paid on closing stock amounting to Rs.276,12,87,066/- was claimed in the revised return by the assessee. The PWC certificate confirmed the payment before the return filing date along with detail justification. Since there was no charge

DCIT Cent. Cir. 4(2), Cent. Range - 4, Mumbai vs. K. Raheja Corp Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 6002/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrib. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6002/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri M. V. RajguruFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sonde
Section 143(3)Section 14A

firms. The assessee filed its return of income electronically on 30/9/2011, declaring total loss of Rs. 5,45,67,181/-. Subsequently the assessee filed Revised Return of Income on 28/03/2013 declaring total loss of Rs. 10,05,86,547/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and after

Sequent Scientific Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT RG 3(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4902/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4902/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sequent Scientific Limited Asstt. Commissioner Of Income- बिधम/ 116, Vardhaman Industrial Tax Range-3(3), Aayakar Bhawan, Estate, Lbs Marg, Gokul Vs. Mumbai. Nagar, Thane 400 601. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacv1501G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri H.P. Mahajani &For Respondent: Shri V.Vidyadhar, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 72A

assessee to explain as to on what basis the inventories were written off by an amount of Rs.14,40,81,661/- in the revised return of income. The assessee in its reply submitted before the A.O that though it was following the conventional method of valuation of inventory at ‘Cost ... Similarly, the stock which is not older than even 2 years has also been identified as obsolete stock for filing the revised return. These also raise the question as to the application of the accounting policies by the assessee over the years in respect of inventories. v. Though the assessee

Shriprakash V Sardesai, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

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

ITA 4230/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

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

Section 68

assessee declared loss of ` 45.23 lakhs in the original return of income, which was revised to a loss of ` 422.98 lakhs in the revised return of income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making additions listed above, which were also confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 3. Aggrieved

Intech Billing Ireland, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1535/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha, Hon'Bleintec Billing Ireland V. The Assistant Director Of Income –Tax C/O S.R.B.C & Associates Llp (International Taxation), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Range 3(1), Scindia House, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai - 400 038 Dadar (West) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan No: Aadca 7890 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department By : Shri Samuel Darse

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

assessing the total income of the Appellant at ₹.11,37,32,921/- as against ₹.6,64,72,920, reported by the Appellant. In its revised Return of Income ('ROI’). Supply of off the shelf software treated 'Royalty': 2. erred in holding that receipts from Reliance Industries Limited ... consideration for supply of the software to RIL. The assessee filed its original return of income on October 30, 2002 and subsequently filed a revised return of income on November 20, 2002. Under both the returns, the assessee claimed the aforesaid fees as not taxable in India on the following

Maruti G.Thopte, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 863/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 253Section 54FSection 55A

Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 25.03.2013 and served on the assessee. In response to the notice, assessee filed revised return of income on 12.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 1,87,987/-. Thereafter, the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order

Jitendra Prataprao Sonar, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1694/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

vide order dt.28.03.2014 and the total income was determined at Rs.78,66,380/- being the same as offered by the assessee in the revised return of income. For the other assessment years the details of income offered by the assessee are as under : A.Y. Income Addl. income Total income Total ... additional income offered by the assessee in the revised return of income for the three assessment years, AO vide order dt.26.09.2014 levied penalty of Rs.12,16,305/- (for A.Y. 2009-10), Rs.48,78,801/- (for A.Y. 2010-11) and Rs.50

Jitendra Prataprao Sonar, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1693/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

vide order dt.28.03.2014 and the total income was determined at Rs.78,66,380/- being the same as offered by the assessee in the revised return of income. For the other assessment years the details of income offered by the assessee are as under : A.Y. Income Addl. income Total income Total ... additional income offered by the assessee in the revised return of income for the three assessment years, AO vide order dt.26.09.2014 levied penalty of Rs.12,16,305/- (for A.Y. 2009-10), Rs.48,78,801/- (for A.Y. 2010-11) and Rs.50

Jitendra Prataprao Sonar, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1692/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

vide order dt.28.03.2014 and the total income was determined at Rs.78,66,380/- being the same as offered by the assessee in the revised return of income. For the other assessment years the details of income offered by the assessee are as under : A.Y. Income Addl. income Total income Total ... additional income offered by the assessee in the revised return of income for the three assessment years, AO vide order dt.26.09.2014 levied penalty of Rs.12,16,305/- (for A.Y. 2009-10), Rs.48,78,801/- (for A.Y. 2010-11) and Rs.50

The ACIT, Sabarkantha Circle, Himatnagar vs. M/S. Mehta Finance, Sabarkantha

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

ITA 3600/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3600 & 3601/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13) The Acit M/S.Mehta Finance बनाम/ Sabarkantha Circle Tower Road Vs. Himatnagar Himatnagar Dist.Sabarkantha 383 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfm 5349 L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri James Kurian, Sr.Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar

For Appellant: Shri James Kurian, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Divatia, AR
Section 271(1)(c)

where certain incriminating documents were found and consequently the assessee made a disclosure of certain unaccounted income for various years. Subsequent to survey, a revised return was filed relevant to AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 where the income earlier declared were revised to include unaccounted income detected ... justified for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 broadly on ground that (i) the initial disclosure was made on estimated basis, (ii) revised return was filed with 15 days of survey, (iii) no reasons were mentioned for initiation of penalty and (iv) revised return were found to be correct

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Mstc Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1303/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1303/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-3(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Mstc Limited [Pan: Aaccm 0021 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nicholus Murmu, Addl.CIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri J.L.Raha, CA
Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessment year 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs. 150,77,75,730/- on 23.09.2011 which was further revised on 22.03.2013. The said revised return was accepted as the original return was filed within due date. The Ld. AO observed that the assessee had made investments in unquoted shares

ITO 9(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Gebbs Healthcare Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 101/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Nikesh JainFor Respondent: Shri V.Vidhyadar
Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 115Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

filed its return of income on,14/10/2010,declaring income of Rs 3.19 lakhs under normal provisions and of Rs.4.77 crores u/s.115 JB.Later on a revised return was filed declaring total income of Rs.NIL,after claiming deduction of Rs.6.07 crores u/s.10B and of Rs. 4.93 crores u/s.10AA of the Act.The assessee

Hindustan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 1321/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Hiten Chander-ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 254(1)

claimed the relief about adjusted value of the closing stock in the computation of income filed with Return of Income,that without filing a revised return it could not make any fresh claim. However,the DRP had held that adjusted value for the year would be the value of opening

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (Formerly Calyon Bank, Erstwhile Credit Agricole Indosuez, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT (It) RG 1, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 6706/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2018AY 2005-06
For Appellant: S/Shri Percy J. Pardiwala/Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Kumar- DR
Section 143Section 254(1)

operating in India through branches in Mumbai and Delhi. It filed its return of income on 31/10/25, declaring loss of Rs. 28.62 crores.A revised return was filed on 30/03/2007,declaring loss of Rs. 30.71 crores he AO completed the assessment u/s. 143 (3) of the Act, on 31/12/2008, determining

Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is dismissed

ITA 915/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

naitonalised bank, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2010-11 on 30.09.2010 declaring total income of Rs.390,56,81,270. A revised return of income was filed on 30.3.2012 wherein the assessee's income was declared at Rs.343,23,86,017. The case was taken up for scrutiny