← 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

Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 2143/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Kusr Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)

above credit holding that in the original return filed the assessee has not claimed this credit and has also not filed the revised return. The ld Assessing Officer relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goetze India Ltd. Vs. CIT 157 Taxmann1. Assessee preferred appeal before

ITO TDS Ward 2, Coimbatore vs. Suba Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical

ITA 1600/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri. TN. Seetharaman, Advocate
Section 148Section 194Section 2(22)(e)Section 201Section 201(1)

validity. However, to buy peace, I have voluntarily admitted this amount as Deemed Dividend and I have offered the same as income in my revised return. I request you to kindly accept my return of income.” :-6-: The assessee filed its return of income in response to notice

DCIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Domex Technical Information P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5522/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Purushottam Kumar, DR
Section 10Section 154Section 254

Technical Information Pvt. Ltd. 2 (P) Ltd., both holding that the assessing officer cannot entertain such claims which were not made in original or revised return, (ii) the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing assessee’s appeal relying on the decision of Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd. holding that appellate ... that the assessee cannot amend a return filed by him before the AO for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. In CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom), relied on by the Ld. counsel of the assessee

Sajjan India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee and revenue for AY 2011-12

ITA 5550/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5550/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिाम/ Sajjan India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) C/O Shankarlal Jain & Aayakar Bhawan Associates , 12, Engineer M K Road V. Building, 265, Princess Queens Road Street, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacs6498M (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri. V. Jenardhanan, DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

proportionate basis, which was rejected by I.T.A. No. 5550/Mum/2015 I.T.A. No. 5751/Mum/2015 I.T.A.No. 6865/Mum/2016 learned CIT(A) as the assessee did not filed revised return of income . The revised ground of appeal raised by the assessee to that effect was rejected by the learned CIT(A) relying ... claimed that this ground was raised before the learned CIT(A) but doors of justice was shut by learned CIT(A) as no revised return was filed by the assessee. It is claimed that since the assessee never raised this issue in preceding year i.e. 2010-11 , the ITAT

Areva T & D Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and

ITA 668/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.Tushar Jarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Mr.S. Bharath, CIT
Section 28

transfer u/s.50B had been claimed by the assessee itself. The assessee had also not made this either in the return filed nor in the revised return filed. Further, a perusal of the Scheme of Arrangement shows that the value of the net assets of the non-T&D business ... under section 43B of amounts paid on account of customs duty and excise duty, included in value of closing stock but taken out in revised return —Assessing Officer rejected assessee’s claim on ground that amounts included in closing stock would be carried over to next year in shape

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S. Areva T & D India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed and

ITA 561/CHNY/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri George Mathan

For Appellant: Mr.Tushar Jarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Mr.S. Bharath, CIT
Section 28

transfer u/s.50B had been claimed by the assessee itself. The assessee had also not made this either in the return filed nor in the revised return filed. Further, a perusal of the Scheme of Arrangement shows that the value of the net assets of the non-T&D business ... under section 43B of amounts paid on account of customs duty and excise duty, included in value of closing stock but taken out in revised return —Assessing Officer rejected assessee’s claim on ground that amounts included in closing stock would be carried over to next year in shape

M/S G J Pawar & Sons, Hubballi vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2), Hubballi

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

ITA 1626/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ak Garodia & Ita No.1626/Bang/2017 - Asst. Year – 2009-10 Ita No.1627/Bang/2017 - Asst. Year – 2011-12 Ita No.1628/Bang/2017 - Asst. Year – 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tulajappa Kalburgi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Palani Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 148Section 44ASection 69C

learned Respondent ought to have considered the fact that the appellant assesse has already taken into account the Gross Profit on undisclosed sales his revised return filed in response to notice under section 148 of the IT Act and an additional income of Rs. 92,303/- has already been offered ... revised return and as such there is no scope of making addition again. Thus, confirming of entire unaccounted sales as income of the appellant-assessee is erroneous. 3. Learned AR of the assessee submitted that on pages 23 to 37 of the Appeal Memo, “Points urged” are appearing

M/S.Hll Lifecare Ltd(Previously Known As Hindustan Latex Ltd), Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

ITA 32/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Govind ShastriFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR

learned A.O. on its eligibility for such claim. Per contra, the learned DR submitted that the assessee having not preferred its claim through a revised return, it could not press for such claim before the learned CIT(A) or before the Tribunal. 20. We have perused the orders and heard ... income but only preferred during the course of assessment proceedings. To a query from the bench as to why assessee did not file a revise return for preferring such claim, the learned AR stated that amount on which such claim could be preferred, crystallized only after the time permitted under

M/S.Hll Lifecare Ltd(Previously Known As Hindustan Latex Ltd), Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

ITA 31/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Govind ShastriFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR

learned A.O. on its eligibility for such claim. Per contra, the learned DR submitted that the assessee having not preferred its claim through a revised return, it could not press for such claim before the learned CIT(A) or before the Tribunal. 20. We have perused the orders and heard ... income but only preferred during the course of assessment proceedings. To a query from the bench as to why assessee did not file a revise return for preferring such claim, the learned AR stated that amount on which such claim could be preferred, crystallized only after the time permitted under

M/S.Hll Lifecare Ltd(Previously Known As Hindustan Latex Ltd), Trivandrum vs. The ACIT, Trivandrum

ITA 30/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Govind ShastriFor Respondent: Sri. A.Dhanaraj, Sr.DR

learned A.O. on its eligibility for such claim. Per contra, the learned DR submitted that the assessee having not preferred its claim through a revised return, it could not press for such claim before the learned CIT(A) or before the Tribunal. 20. We have perused the orders and heard ... income but only preferred during the course of assessment proceedings. To a query from the bench as to why assessee did not file a revise return for preferring such claim, the learned AR stated that amount on which such claim could be preferred, crystallized only after the time permitted under

Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6131/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Addl. Cit, Special Range-2, M/S. Bechtel India Pvt. Ltd., 418, Naurang House, 21 K.G. Marg, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacb0298A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Ms. Vrinda Tulshan, Adv. Respondent By Sh. H.K. Choudhary, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 26.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 23.11.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153(3)Section 154Section 254Section 271Section 92C

erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant for the relevant AY at Rs.39,65,69,131/- as against the revised returned income of Rs.29,31,34,169/-. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP")/AO/Transfer

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahalaxmi Designs Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1991/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal & And Shri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singhshri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate and Ms. Bharti Sharma, CA

carry forward of net loss of Rs.29,360/-. The company later on realized its mistake and on December 26, 1984, it filed a revised return showing business loss of Rs.3,21,802/-. It claimed that according to the accepted accounting practice, interest and finance charges along with other pre-production ... assessee offered the interest received as its income from other sources which was set off against the business loss. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return and claimed that interest income should be set off against the pre-production expenses and should not be taxed as income from other sources

Shri Sanat Kumar Bhattacharjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-27, Haldia, Midnapore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 497/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

petition mentioned that the voluntary disclosure was made in order to come clean and to avoid protracted litigation. The time limit for filing the revised return had expired and hence the assessee could not file any revised return offering this income of Rs 5,88,498/- towards investment in land ... issued only to regularize the disclosure made by the assessee vide petition dated 24.8.2009 since the assessee could not file any revised return for the original assessment within the meaning of section 139(5) of the Act. It was also pointed out that the landed property wsa purchased

Shri Sanat Kumar Bhattacharjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-27, Haldia, Midnapore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 496/KOL/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

petition mentioned that the voluntary disclosure was made in order to come clean and to avoid protracted litigation. The time limit for filing the revised return had expired and hence the assessee could not file any revised return offering this income of Rs 5,88,498/- towards investment in land ... issued only to regularize the disclosure made by the assessee vide petition dated 24.8.2009 since the assessee could not file any revised return for the original assessment within the meaning of section 139(5) of the Act. It was also pointed out that the landed property wsa purchased

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Tantia Construction Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1405/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1405/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-12(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Tantia Construction Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 0811 E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K.T iwari, CITFor Respondent: Shri M. Tiwari
Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 80l

year of assessability of Retention money as clarified in several judicial decisions came to the knowledge of the assessee recently. Therefore, the assessee filed revised return to reduce its business profit to the extent of Rs. 10,60,18,958/- as Retention money since AO’s observations read as follows

Shri.Syed Abubacker Riyaz vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA/100148/2015HC Karnataka20 Nov 2017

Bench: S.SUJATHA,H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263

India, Mapuca Goa. In response to the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Act, the assessee-appellant came forward and filed a revised return declaring additional income of Rs.16,13,257/- and paid additional tax of Rs.6,47,860/-. 4 After considering the explanation offered, the assessing officer ... concluded the assessment accepting the income returned by the assessee in his revised return of income on the basis of peak (deposit) credit. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, revised the order of the assessing officer and enhanced the assessment

M/S Tcg Lifesciences Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata

In the result ITA No. 121/Kol/2016 is partly allowed while ITA No

ITA 647/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Manoneet Dalal C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92F

return was not filed in Japan. Hence, the assessee now after payment of taxes in Japan and since the time for filing of revised return in India has expired is now seeking to raise the aforesaid Additional ground. 31. We have considered the plea of the Assessee and the objection

East India Business Centre Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7, Kolkata

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

ITA 2058/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2058/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 East India Business Centre Private Limited.......................................Appellant 25A, Shakespeare Sarani, The Legacy, 1St Floor, Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aabce7659R] D.C.I.T. Circle 7 Kolkata...................……………………………………Respondent 54, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata - 700017 Appearances By: Shri Subbiah Chidambaram, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 12, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 17, 2017 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Cit (Appeals) – 16, Kolkata Dated 04.08.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 On The Following Grounds: 1. Order Bad In Law & On Facts 1.1 That The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (A) Under Section 250 Of The It Act Is Bad In Law & On Facts. 2. Disclosure Of Higher Income In Revised Return 2.1 That On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Contention Of The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’) That Disclosure Of Higher Income Of Rs. 37,65,827/- (Before Adjustment Of Brought Forward Losses) In The Revised Return Filed By The Company As Against The Original Return Resulted In Concealment Of Income. 2.2 That The Ld. Cit (A) Failed To Consider That The Total Income Disclosed In Both The Original & Revised Return Was Nil After Adjustment Of Brought Forward Losses. 3. Expenses Incurred Towards Property Service Charges

Section 250Section 40

under section 250 of the IT Act is bad in law and on facts. 2. Disclosure of higher income in revised return 2.1 That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the contention of the Assessing Officer ... that disclosure of higher income of Rs. 37,65,827/- (before adjustment of brought forward losses) in the revised return filed by the company as against the original return resulted in concealment of income. 2.2 That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to consider that the total income disclosed in both

M/S Tcg Lifescience Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11(2), Kolkata

In the result ITA No. 121/Kol/2016 is partly allowed while ITA No

ITA 121/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Manoneet Dalal C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 92Section 92ASection 92B(1)Section 92CSection 92F

return was not filed in Japan. Hence, the assessee now after payment of taxes in Japan and since the time for filing of revised return in India has expired is now seeking to raise the aforesaid Additional ground. 31. We have considered the plea of the Assessee and the objection

Chetan Khara, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-34(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2675/KOL/2013[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri O.P.Baid, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattachsrjee, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated as the assessee had shown additional income of Rs.1,48,.540/- in the revised return of income. Thereafter penalty was levied. 3. Penalty in this case has been initiated in the assessment order, which is passed on the return ... There is no addition whatsoever by the AO. When there is no variation in the income returned and the income assessed and as the revised return of income has been accepted, no penalty u/s ITA No.2675/Kol/2013-Chetan Khara A.Y.2004-05 2 271(1)(c) of the Act lies. Penalty