← 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

ACIT, Chennai vs. Trimex Sands Pvt Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 418/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

relied on by the AO, the issue was whether the assessee can make a fresh claim by submitting revised computation and without furnishing a revised return of income. It was held that any fresh claim can be made only by filing a revised return of income. In the assessee

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 384/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

relied on by the AO, the issue was whether the assessee can make a fresh claim by submitting revised computation and without furnishing a revised return of income. It was held that any fresh claim can be made only by filing a revised return of income. In the assessee

Trimex Sands Private Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years

ITA 383/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Purushotham, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Section 11Section 14A

relied on by the AO, the issue was whether the assessee can make a fresh claim by submitting revised computation and without furnishing a revised return of income. It was held that any fresh claim can be made only by filing a revised return of income. In the assessee

ACIT, Erode vs. M/S. S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy, Erode

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 3053/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.S.Mohameed Mustafa, JCITFor Respondent: Mr.N.C.Ravikrishnan,Advocate
Section 68

added to the total income u/s.68 after giving assessee set- off for the amount of `1,48,15,000/- voluntary considered in the revised return of income. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 4.2 On appeal,the Ld.CIT ... income of `1,17,66,347/- on account of unaccounted investment in the chilling plants. This declaration was however not considered while filing the revised return. Despite being given opportunity during the course of assessment no explanation was filed as to why the said declaration has been retracted. Therefore

Bechtel India Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is disposed of in the above terms

ITA/97/2017HC Delhi25 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 115JSection 260A

return of income, for the AY in question, on 23rd November, 2011 after adjusting a book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. A revised return was filed on 21st March, 2013 declaring an income of Rs.21,99,19,228. 6. The Assessee submitted a Transfer Pricing (‘TP’) study

Dr. Francis Rajan, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 3/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri Sagadevan, JCITFor Respondent: 24.07.2017
Section 148Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 54F

case are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 28.07.2011. Subsequently he filed revised return of income on 22.09.2011 admitting total income of Rs.8,48,090/- after claiming deduction U/s.54F of the Act. Thereafter on 21.10.2013, the case

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)-1 vs. Vijay Kumar Kataria

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed

ITA/462/2017HC Delhi24 Jul 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 153Section 153ASection 245(2)Section 271(1)Section 274dSection 276

though the same had already been filed on 31.10.2006 under the provisions of 139(1) of IT Act. On 16.02.2015 the petitioner filed a revised return for the assessment year 2006-07 declaring the balance in the HSBC account London of US $ 575010, equivalent to Rs.2

Amar Immunodiagnostics, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) Cir 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2827/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Amar Immunodiagnostics Dcit (Osd) 10(3) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai 116, Shree Diamond Centre, Vs. Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai – 400 083 Pan: Aaeca6561D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 35Section 40A(2)(b)

Income Tax Act, 1961 @ 200% of actual such expenditure was claimed. Assessee voluntarily paid additional tax and could not file the revised return as the time for revising the return had elapsed. Final Form 3CL was received in Nov 2013. As per the 3CL, the income was revised and additional

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S International Tractors Ltd

ITA/1082/2005HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

While the Assessee claimed this deduction in the original return filed for AY 1997-98, it did not make any such claim in its revised return. Further, no such deduction was allowed by the AO for the AY 1997-98. 5. A fresh notification dated 9th December, 1997 was issued ... filed by the Assessee for this AY on 30th November, 2000. Initially, no deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act was claimed. A revised return was filed on 12th October, 2001 claiming deduction of Rs. 6.40 crores under Section 80-IA of the Act. The case was taken

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. International Tractors Ltd

ITA/690/2008HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

While the Assessee claimed this deduction in the original return filed for AY 1997-98, it did not make any such claim in its revised return. Further, no such deduction was allowed by the AO for the AY 1997-98. 5. A fresh notification dated 9th December, 1997 was issued ... filed by the Assessee for this AY on 30th November, 2000. Initially, no deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act was claimed. A revised return was filed on 12th October, 2001 claiming deduction of Rs. 6.40 crores under Section 80-IA of the Act. The case was taken

Commissioner of Income Tax (Ltu) vs. International Tractors Limited

ITA/1189/2009HC Delhi20 Jul 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 147Section 260ASection 80

While the Assessee claimed this deduction in the original return filed for AY 1997-98, it did not make any such claim in its revised return. Further, no such deduction was allowed by the AO for the AY 1997-98. 5. A fresh notification dated 9th December, 1997 was issued ... filed by the Assessee for this AY on 30th November, 2000. Initially, no deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act was claimed. A revised return was filed on 12th October, 2001 claiming deduction of Rs. 6.40 crores under Section 80-IA of the Act. The case was taken

Rel Utility Engimeers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7177/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Crest Logistics & Addl. Cit-10(1), Engineers Private Limited, [New Jurisdiction Addl. Cit (Erstwhile Rel Utility 14(3)(1)] Engineers Ltd. Formerly Known Aayakar Bhavan, As Rel Utility Engineers Ltd. M.K. Road, Vs. Formerly Known As Mumbai - 400020 Sonata Investments Ltd.), Devidas Lane, Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W) – 400 103 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Crest Logistic & Tax-14(1)(2), Engineering Ltd., Room No.470, 4Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sonata Aayakar Bhavan, Investments Ltd.) Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. 307, Charted House, Mumbai - 400020 297/299, Dr. Cawasji Hormosji Street, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth, D.R

Court in the case of ‘Goetze (India) Limited v. CIT’ (2006) 157 Taxman 1, relating to the restriction of making the claim through a revised return was limited to the powers of the Assessing Authority and the said judgment does not impinge on the power or negate the powers ... being 'capital gains' instead of 'business income' without appreciating the fact that the assessee cannot make claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return of income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

DCIT 10(1), Mumbai vs. Sonata Investments Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6931/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Crest Logistics & Addl. Cit-10(1), Engineers Private Limited, [New Jurisdiction Addl. Cit (Erstwhile Rel Utility 14(3)(1)] Engineers Ltd. Formerly Known Aayakar Bhavan, As Rel Utility Engineers Ltd. M.K. Road, Vs. Formerly Known As Mumbai - 400020 Sonata Investments Ltd.), Devidas Lane, Near Mtnl, Off Svp Road, Borivali (W) – 400 103 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Crest Logistic & Tax-14(1)(2), Engineering Ltd., Room No.470, 4Th Floor, (Formerly Known As Sonata Aayakar Bhavan, Investments Ltd.) Maharshi Karve Road, Vs. 307, Charted House, Mumbai - 400020 297/299, Dr. Cawasji Hormosji Street, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 002 Pan: Aaccr 7266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth, D.R

Court in the case of ‘Goetze (India) Limited v. CIT’ (2006) 157 Taxman 1, relating to the restriction of making the claim through a revised return was limited to the powers of the Assessing Authority and the said judgment does not impinge on the power or negate the powers ... being 'capital gains' instead of 'business income' without appreciating the fact that the assessee cannot make claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return of income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting

ACIT, Moradabad vs. M/S. Prathma Bank, Moradabad

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4090/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4090/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Prathma Bank, Tax, Circle-1, Ramganga Vihar, Moradabad Moradabad (U.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajp0988Q Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.07.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.04.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A), Bareilly.

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

column No. 14 losses of current year carried forward had been claimed at Rs.28,62,39,159/-. The AO noticed that the assessee vide revised return filed on 11.10.2010 had claimed deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Act at Rs.105,69,80,000/- which was 10% of the aggregate

Sensiple Software Solutions Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the grounds relating to denial of exemption u/s

ITA 600/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 10ASection 10B

submitted that eventhough the AO, in principle, accepted that it is eligible for deduction u/s. 10A, denied the claim on the ground that the revised return was not filed. The AO, having accepted the Audit Report in Form No. 56F for claim :-4-: I.T.A. N0. 600/Mds/2015 u/s. 10A, should have ... given an opportunity to file the revised return, before rejecting the same. The DRP rejected the claim on the different ground that the deduction u/s. 10A would be applicable only if its Undertaking was established in SEZ, on or after 01.04.2001. Since the assessee was approved under STPI

K.G.Lakshmipathy & Co., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 343/CHNY/2016[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jul 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: Smt. R. Rajeswari, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

submitted by the Ld.AR that for the relevant assessment year, the assessee had filed its return of income originally on 31.10.2007 and revised return on 02.01.2008. The assessment of the assessee originally came to be completed u/s.143(3) on 31.12.2009. It was a submission that the assessee

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Seth Kumar Rai International, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4277/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 80Section 80H

appreciating the fact that an assessee cannot amend a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return as held in Goetze (India) Ltd vs CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 1 (SC) and accordingly, revised certificate from Chartered Accountant could not have been ... taken into consideration since the revised certificate has the effect of amending the claim for deduction and no revised return has been filed in the facts of the case." 3. "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in giving relief to the assessee

Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) RG 4(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2759/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri P.J.Pardiwala, Nishant Thakkar &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chauhanb (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9Section 9(1)(i)

Deducted at Source (TDS) only to the extent of Rs 39,219,764 instead of Rs 43,813,138 as claimed in the revised return of income filed for AY 2013-14, resulting in a short grant of credit for TDS amounting to Rs 4,593,374. 6. Ground

DCIT, Chennai vs. Add Albatross Properties Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 377/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 377/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Add Albatross Properties Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No. 1/4A, Rajiv Gandhi Road (Omr), Corporate Circle 1(1), Egattur, Thiruporur, Chennai 600 130. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aahca8036E] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K.N. Mohandass, Ca सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai Dated 11.11.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Disallowance Of Business Loss Of ₹.3,24,05,339/- Claimed By The Assessee To Be Carried Forward For Future Years.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Mohandass, CA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

that the assessee has filed the return of income on 28.09.2013 admitting total loss of ₹.9,30,73,729/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 25.09.2014 returning loss of ₹..3,24,05,339/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section

Dev Land and Housing P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4084/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Ms.Arju Garodia (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

acceptable in view of the fact that the assessee had not claimed this expenditure either in the original return of income or the revised return of income. It has been decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd that there is no provision ... able to give any credible explanation regarding the claim of expenditure which was neither made in the original return of income nor in the revised return, the disallowance made by the AO is confirmed. Regarding the objection of the AO that such claim can only be made in the return