“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

Fedex Express Tranportation and Supply Chain Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3621/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Fedex Express Transportation The Principal Commissioner Of & Supply Chain Services Income Tax – 9 Room No.214, 2Nd Floor, (India) Private Limited Boomerang, Unit No.801, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Wing-A, 8Th Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aabcf6516A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue By : Shri S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)

Section 119Section 139(5)Section 263

under:- The assessee has filed the return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring total loss of (-)Rs.13,21,13,466/- and subsequently filed a purported revised return declaring total loss of (-) Rs.62,71,22,057/-. As per section 139(5) of the Act, if any person having furnished a return under ... Assessing Officer failed to seek any explanation with regard to the A.Y.2011-12 fact that there was variation in the contents of the original and revised return could not be attributed to any omission or wrong statement as referred to above and failed to appreciate that the subsequent return

M/S. Buhler (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 2167/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. R. Ramesh, JCIT (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 5Section 9(1)(i)

income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 14.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.28,83,00,988. On 28.3.2012, the assessee filed a revised return declaring income of Rs.28,15,14,861. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

(Late) P. Dhanalakshmi, L/H. P. Gopi, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2646/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2646/Chny/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2005-06 P. Dhanalakshmi (Late), The Income Tax Officer, Rep. By L/H P. Gopi, No. 73, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 11(3), Nainiappan Naicken Street, Mannady, [Formerly Business Ward Viii(3)], Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Ajfpd5496D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 09.05.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining The Order Passed Under Section 264 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 264Section 264(4)(a)

owner (1/5th share) in the connected case of Shri C.K. Theerthagiri), proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated. Based on revised return filed by the assessee, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act assessing the income at ₹.62,40,724/- raising

ACIT-9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Global Jewellery Pyt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2657/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit-9(3)(2) M/S Global Jewellery 418, 4Th Floor, Vs. Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, G-49, Gem & Jewellery Mumbai-400020. Complex, Seepz, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400096. Pan No. Aabcg5222E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shir Ram Tiwari, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/11/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shir Ram Tiwari, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 43(5)Section 43(5)(d)

that the assessee-company filed its return of income for the AY 2012-12 on 30.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.1,51,980/-. A revised return of income was filed on 10.12.2012 declaring loss of Rs.72,28,935/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an assessment

Addl.C.I.T. RG.8(3), Mumbai vs. Shreeji Jewellery Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4472/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am The Assistant Commissioner M/S Neysa Jewellery Ltd. Of Income Tax-Circle 10(3)(1), (Earlier Known As M/S. Mumbai Shreeji Jewellery Ltd.) G-36, G&J Complex Iii, Vs. Seepz, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 096, Maharashtra Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaecs1821N

For Appellant: Vipul Joshi & Ishwar Rathi, ARs’For Respondent: Arju Garodia, DR

Section 10ASection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

also offered additional income of ₹ 1.90 crores being excessive payment of commission made to Hitesh trading company. The assessee filed revise return of income on 13-02- 2006 and in this return also claim of deduction under section 10A of the Act was withdrawn and also additional income ... voluntarily admitted that the commission claimed to the extent of ₹ 1.90 crores was excessive and the same was offered for taxation in the revised returns filed from time to time. The AO added the same as income declared under section 133A of the Act amounting to ₹ 1.90 crores. Aggrieved, assessee

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Department stands

ITA 1991/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 209Section 92C

income after claiming set off of losses and income u/s. 115JB at Rs. 92,77,50,120/- on 28.11.2011. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 28.3.2013 declaring NIL income after claiming set off of losses and income u/s. 115JB

ITO, WD-36(3), Kolkata vs. Sri Siddhartha Paul, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1303/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA

Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

income from salary and other sources. He filed return of income for A.Y.2010-11 on 26.09.2010 disclosing the total income of Rs.14,63,490/-. A revised return was filed on 07.05.2011 declaring the total income at Rs.7,53,930/-. The AO received information that the assessee is one of the directors

ACIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Lafarge Aggregates & Concrete P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2783/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: S/Shri Paras Savla & Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathswamy-CIT

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

business of manufacturing and supply of ready mix concrete and aggregates filed its return of income on 30th Sept. 2009 and subsequently filed two revised return of income declaring total Loss at Rs.56.9 croress. The AO completed the assessment u/s.143(3) f the Act,determining its income ... referred to the case of Goetz India Ltd. (157 taxman 1) and held that the assessee cannot make a fresh claim without filing revised return. So, he rejected the claim made by the assessee with regard to the depreciation on goodwill. 2.2.Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee

Deccan Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal filed by the assessee is statistically allowed

ITA 3611/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Deccan Enterprises Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1) Flat No. 1A, Hill Top Society Piramal Chambers Vs. Pali Hill Road, Bandra (W) Lalbaug, Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400050 Pan – Aaafd2751M Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1) M/S. Deccan Enterprises Room No. 307, 3Rd Piramal Flat No. 1A, Hill Top Society Vs. Chambers Pali Hill Road, Bandra (W) Lalbaug, Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400050 Pan – Aaafd2751M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar

Section 68

Profit and loss account without appreciating the facts that during the course of survey action, when confronted with this issue, confirmed that a revised return will be filed and offer the same for taxation. (4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deccan Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal filed by the assessee is statistically allowed

ITA 3137/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal &For Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar

Section 68

The DCIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Bhagwati Banquets & Hotels Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1299/AHD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 43B

added back in the computation of income; appellant company claimed deduction of the said amount in the succeeding assessment year 2008-09 in the revised return filed; the said claim of deduction was allowed; thus there was no loss of revenue and therefore , levy of penalty was not warranted ... audit report; by inadvertent mistake and the assessee has claimed deduction of the said amount in the succeeding assessment year 2008-09 in the revised return filed. Regarding brought forward unabsorbed losses/depreciation the Ld. Counsel has submitted that assessee has not furnished inaccurate particulars as both the returned losses

Pravinchandra N. Kamdar, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5194/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri H N Singh

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 132BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 234B

orders of Rs.58,00,860/- dated 19.1.2012 was given to the search team for non seizure of jewellary. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 25.7.2012 declaring total income of Rs.2,90,54,548/- showing therein the undisclosed cash and jewellery as has been found during the course

DCIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1251/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2006-07 Dy Cit 5(3)(2) Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd., Mumbai 10-A, Bakhtawar, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai 400 021

For Appellant: Shri V JustinFor Respondent: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal

Section 115JSection 115VSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 92C

mistake apparent which requires rectification. The Assessing Officer did not agree with the assessee and observed that the assessee in its second revised return filed on 05.03.2009 has declared income under normal provisions of the Act at ` 18,30,43,646/- and profit taxable u/s. 115JB at loss

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Smt. Sheena Mathur, Jaipur

In the result, revenue’s ground of appeal is dismissed

ITA 627/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.L.PoddarFor Respondent: Smt Rolee Agarwal (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

sole ground of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was right in allowing the revised return of Rs. 30,64,640/- instead of original return of Rs. 86,23,850/-“ 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that ... increasing the return and the same has happened due to some clerical error at the time of filing of return, we are filing the revised return for 2 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur Vs Smt. Sheena Mathur, Jaipur the year under consideration for the correct amount showing the income

ITO, WD-35(3), Kolkata vs. Sri Laxmipat Surana, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross-objection of the assessee both are dismissed

ITA 142/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 I.T.O. Ward 35(3), Kolkata.............................................................................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 8Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700107 Sri Laxmipat Surana………………………………………………..........................Respondent 12, Bonfield Lane, 1St Floor, Kolkata – 700001 [Pan : Akqps7037P] C.O. No. 19/Kol/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 142/Kol/2016) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sri Laxmipat Surana………………………………………………......................Cross-Objector 12, Bonfield Lane, 1St Floor, Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Akqps7037P] I.T.O. Ward 35(3), Kolkata.............................................................................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 8Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700107 Appearances By: Shri D.Z. Chowngthu, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 08, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 10 , 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) – 10, Kolkata Dated 09.11.2015 & The Same Is Being Disposed Of Along With The Cross-Objection Filed By The Assessee Being C.O. No. 19/Kol/2016. 2 I.T.A. No. 142 & C.O. No. 19/Kol/2016 Sri Laxmipat Surana

Section 143(3)Section 32

justified to allow the claim of the assessee for depreciation which was not made either in the original return or even by filing revised return. We are unable to accept this contention of the learned DR. In our opinion, the restriction laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... authority is sufficiently empowered to entertain the claim made by the assessee for depreciation for the first time before him without even filing the revised return as clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) itself. Even the old circular of the CBDT

Soumyalatha S. Shetty, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7396/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Ms. Soumyalatha S. Shetty Vs. Dcit 5(1)(2) 22, Bhulabhai Desai Road Aayakar Bhavan Mahalaxmi Chamber Mumbai Mumbai – 400 026 Pan/Gir No.Abmps8762L Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

other sources. It furnished its return of income for A.Y.2009-10 on 28/09/2009 declaring total income of Rs.97,52,650/-. Thereafter the assessee has filed revised return on 2 Ms. Soumyalatha S Shetty 30/09/2010 declaring total income of Rs.97,89,200/-. Further, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 23/11/2011

Laxminarayan S. Yadav, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5764/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Batik B. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Omi Ningshen

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

term capital gain would also not absolve the assessee from the offence committed, since, he 4 Shri Laxminarayan S. Yadav should have filed a revised return of income as per the provisions of the Act. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. As could

Jt CIT (OSD) 2(2), Mumbai vs. The Manjiri Stud Farm P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4807/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

letting out of premises and letting out of fit outs. 13. The AO, after considering the explanation of the assessee observed that the revised return filed by the assessee rejected in view of the fact that it has barred by limitation. The AO further observed that the assessee’s business ... observed that the assessee could have claimed deduction of property maintenance expenses u/s 37 of the I.T. Act only by filing a revised return. Since the assessee has not filed the revised return within the time, the AO was right in not entertaining the claim of the assessee and also

The Manjiri Stud Farm P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3842/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 68

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S. Cibersites India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal for the asst

ITA 1325/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A No.1325/Bang/2016 (Asst. Year – 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bengaluru. . Appellant Vs. M/S Cibersites India Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Tower ‘D’, Ibc Knowledge Park, 4/1, Bannerghata Road, Bengaluru. . Respondent Pan – Aabck2797E. Appellant By : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit Respondent By : Shri Dwarkanath – Employee Of Company Date Of Hearing : 7-11-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-11-2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CITFor Respondent: Shri Dwarkanath – Employee of company

Section 10ASection 143(3)

declaring total income of Rs.4,51,233/- after, inter alia, claiming deduction u/s. 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 23/11/2011 declaring NIL income. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144C