← 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. S.Gopalakrishnan, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1856/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1851 To 1856 & 1937/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2011-12

Section 133ASection 147Section 148

hands of the assessee, her husband and her mother). Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s.148 and the assessee has filed the revised returns for the AYs 2005-06 to 2010-11 as under: ITA Nos.1851 to 1856 & 1937/Mds/2015 :- 3 -: Original Income as per Assessment Income return filed in Difference Year

ACIT, Chennai vs. S.Gopalakrishnan, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1855/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1851 To 1856 & 1937/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2011-12

Section 133ASection 147Section 148

hands of the assessee, her husband and her mother). Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s.148 and the assessee has filed the revised returns for the AYs 2005-06 to 2010-11 as under: ITA Nos.1851 to 1856 & 1937/Mds/2015 :- 3 -: Original Income as per Assessment Income return filed in Difference Year

ACIT, Chennai vs. S.Gopalakrishnan, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1854/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1851 To 1856 & 1937/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2011-12

Section 133ASection 147Section 148

hands of the assessee, her husband and her mother). Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s.148 and the assessee has filed the revised returns for the AYs 2005-06 to 2010-11 as under: ITA Nos.1851 to 1856 & 1937/Mds/2015 :- 3 -: Original Income as per Assessment Income return filed in Difference Year

ACIT, Chennai vs. S.Gopalakrishnan, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1853/CHNY/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1851 To 1856 & 1937/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2011-12

Section 133ASection 147Section 148

hands of the assessee, her husband and her mother). Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s.148 and the assessee has filed the revised returns for the AYs 2005-06 to 2010-11 as under: ITA Nos.1851 to 1856 & 1937/Mds/2015 :- 3 -: Original Income as per Assessment Income return filed in Difference Year

ACIT, Chennai vs. S.Gopalakrishnan, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1852/CHNY/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1851 To 1856 & 1937/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2011-12

Section 133ASection 147Section 148

hands of the assessee, her husband and her mother). Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s.148 and the assessee has filed the revised returns for the AYs 2005-06 to 2010-11 as under: ITA Nos.1851 to 1856 & 1937/Mds/2015 :- 3 -: Original Income as per Assessment Income return filed in Difference Year

ACIT, Chennai vs. S.Gopalakrishnan, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1851/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1851 To 1856 & 1937/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2005-06 To 2011-12

Section 133ASection 147Section 148

hands of the assessee, her husband and her mother). Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s.148 and the assessee has filed the revised returns for the AYs 2005-06 to 2010-11 as under: ITA Nos.1851 to 1856 & 1937/Mds/2015 :- 3 -: Original Income as per Assessment Income return filed in Difference Year

Raptakos Brett and Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 14ASection 234BSection 50C

crores u/s. 14A of the Act 2 M/s. Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. towards expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income. However, in the revised return of income, the assessee reduced amount disallowable u/s. 14A of the Act as per details given below :- Disallowance out of expenses ... iiii), we noticed that the assessee has given workings of expenditure to be disallowed u/r. 8D(2)(iii) of the Act in the revised return of income. We noticed that the Assessing Officer did not examine the same and accordingly did not record any objective satisfaction to the effect that

Sudarshan Sharma, Kota vs. ITO, Kota

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

ITA 408/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sajneev Mathur &For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR
Section 271(1)

Ashish Saraswat for recording their statement in support of loan given by them to the assessee. However,on 17-01- 2013,he filed his revised return by surrendering 12 cash creditors amounting to Rs. 176,000/- out of above 17 cash creditors for Rs. 2,60,000/-. The statement ... this regard considered and being not entertaining his revised return of income filed on 17-01-2013 as belated /honest, the surrendered amount in the revised return Rs. 1,76,000/- is added to total income shown by theaa originally at Rs. 1,58,870/-. Penalty proceedings

Khandelwal Chemicals, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-35(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse on ground No

ITA 777/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.777/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Khandelwal Chemicals, Vs. The Ito, Room No.702, 7Th Floor, Ward-25(3), Kolkata 32, Ezra Street, Kolkata- 700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfk 9060 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate Revenue By : Sh.S.K.Z.H.Tanveer, Jcit,Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata, In Appeal No.248/Cit(A)-10/Wd-.5(3)/13-14/Kol, Dated 01.02.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 27.01.2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 19.08.2008 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,92,034/-. Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Various Additions. 3. Aggrieved From The Order Of The Ao, Assessee Filed An Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh.S.K.Z.H.Tanveer, JCIT,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

escapement of income on the basis of recorded reasons. 6.1 ld AR for the assesse has submitted before us that assesse had filed the revised return of income and accepted the difference of Rs.64,634/. and as such the reasons for reopening the case had been complied with

The Principal Commssioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s. Jaya Constructions

ITTA/103/2017HC Telangana22 Feb 2017

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Virender Kumar Bhatia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3410/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 3409/Del/2013 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A .No. 3410/Del/2013 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A .No. 3412/Del/2013 (A.Y 2009-10) Dcit Vs Virender Kumar Bhatia Central Circle 7 N-71, Panchsheel Enclave New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) Aampb2666H (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 37(1)

assessee is a proprietor of M/s. Baani International. Notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) was issued. In revised return of income the assessee claimed expenditure of interest paid to HDFC in profit and loss account of M/s. Baani International relating to receipts of interest from FDR, rental income from

Murli Dodeja, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3848/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3847/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3848/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Murli Dodeja, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Shop No. 1, Ward 21(3)(3), V. Kipwala Compound, Bandra Kurla Complex, Sakivihar Road, Bandra, Powai, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400050. Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Afupd1268G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the facts and circumstances under which the Appellant had filed original return of income and had filed revised return of income before receipt of any inquiry or notice u/s.148 from the Assessing Officer. 3. The Learned CIT (A) failed to consider the fact ... from Asstt. Commissioner of Income, Circle 2, Kalyan . The assessee also submitted that the assessee has already filed voluntarily revised return of income on 28-02-2011 with Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2, Kalyan and paid the due taxes due along with interest to the credit of Central

Murli Dodeja, Mumbai vs. ITO 21(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3847/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3847/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3848/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Murli Dodeja, Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Shop No. 1, Ward 21(3)(3), V. Kipwala Compound, Bandra Kurla Complex, Sakivihar Road, Bandra, Powai, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400050. Mumbai – 400 072. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Afupd1268G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the facts and circumstances under which the Appellant had filed original return of income and had filed revised return of income before receipt of any inquiry or notice u/s.148 from the Assessing Officer. 3. The Learned CIT (A) failed to consider the fact ... from Asstt. Commissioner of Income, Circle 2, Kalyan . The assessee also submitted that the assessee has already filed voluntarily revised return of income on 28-02-2011 with Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 2, Kalyan and paid the due taxes due along with interest to the credit of Central

Asst CIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Dart Express Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3392/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dt Garasia, Jm & Shri Aswani Taneja, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, DRFor Respondent: Ms. Forum Mehta & Shri Aliasgar
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 244A(1)(b)

return of income of Rs.82,34,17,524/- and claimed credit for tax deducted at source of Rs.20,62,04,687/-. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return declaring taxable income of Rs.82,34,17,524/- and claiming credit for TDS of Rs.21,06,64,646/-. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment

ACIT 17(3), Mumbai vs. Mohd Iqbal Abdul Salam Khan, Mumbai

ITA 7143/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shri Mohd Iqbal Abdul Salam Khan., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-17(3), Room No.604, 6Th Itt Bhatti. Ittalian Compound, G.M. Link Road, Dr. Ambedkar Vs. Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Chowk, Goregaon, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400063 Pan No.Agypk5044N Appellant .. Respondent Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shri Mohd Iqbal Abdul Salam Khan., Circle-17(3), Room No.604, 6 Th Itt Bhatti. Ittalian Compound, Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. G.M. Link Road, Dr. Ambedkar Mumbai-400012 Chowk, Goregaon, Mumbai-400063 Appellant .. Respondent .. Shri. M.S. Mathuria, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. Shri. Suman Kumar, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 16-01-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 17-02-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 50C

facts of the case and the same are not acceptable. Firstly, the revision of co, of purchase has not been done by filing revised return. Therefore, claim of enhanced purchase cost is not tenable. Secondly provisions of sec. 50C are applicable to seller of the property and not the purchaser

Mohd Iqbal Abdul Salam Khan, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 17(3), Mumbai

ITA 6968/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shri Mohd Iqbal Abdul Salam Khan., Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-17(3), Room No.604, 6Th Itt Bhatti. Ittalian Compound, G.M. Link Road, Dr. Ambedkar Vs. Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Chowk, Goregaon, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400063 Pan No.Agypk5044N Appellant .. Respondent Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shri Mohd Iqbal Abdul Salam Khan., Circle-17(3), Room No.604, 6 Th Itt Bhatti. Ittalian Compound, Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. G.M. Link Road, Dr. Ambedkar Mumbai-400012 Chowk, Goregaon, Mumbai-400063 Appellant .. Respondent .. Shri. M.S. Mathuria, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. Shri. Suman Kumar, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 16-01-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 17-02-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 50C

facts of the case and the same are not acceptable. Firstly, the revision of co, of purchase has not been done by filing revised return. Therefore, claim of enhanced purchase cost is not tenable. Secondly provisions of sec. 50C are applicable to seller of the property and not the purchaser

ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indian Corporate Loan Securitization Trust 2008 Series 14I, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 4343/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Goasinindian Corporate Loan Securitisation Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) Trust- 2008 Series 14 Mumbai C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-(23)1)(2) Indian Corporate Loan [Erstwhile Ito-19(3)(2)] Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 Room No. 108, Matru Mandir Vs. C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Tardeo Road, Grant Road 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Mumbai 400007 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur &For Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

transfer" includes any settlement, trust, covenant, agreement or arrangement. The contention of the Assessee as can be seen from the reasons for filing revised return was that the monies given by the beneficiaries to the Trust was a revocable transfer and therefore any income arising from such revocable transfer will

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Deeplok Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by theRevenue and the Cross Objection raised by the assessee , are dismissed

ITA 750/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

For Appellant: S/Shri S. L. Kochar& Anil Kochar, ARsFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 142(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 54E

income of Rs.22679792/- and claimed deduction of Rs.50 lacs u/s 54EC of the Act. The computation sheet for the same was filed. It filed revised return of income with total income of Rs.22508835/-. Assessee claimed deduction of Rs.50 lacs u/s 54EC of the Act, in the revised return of income ... computation sheet for the same was filed. Thus,assessee has claimed the deduction u/s 54EC of the Act in the original as well as revised return of income.The claim was not by mistake. It was 2 CO No.10/Kol/2017 Deeplok Builders Pvt. Ltd., AY. 2009-10 claimed with the full knowledge

DCIT - 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunshield Chemicals Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for the A

ITA 2346/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Vaibhav Jain, DRFor Respondent: Shri. Jitendra Jain, AR
Section 11Section 115JSection 143(3)

since the assessee had only claim an amount of Rs. 1,78,28,655/-in the return of income and had not filed any revised return of income to claim the additional amount of big loss available on Assessment Year: 2010-11 the average basis, the assessee was allowed

Heeralal Meghraj Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3015/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

missing in respect of certain purchases. He had also stated that he has not been able to justify these purchases and will file a revised return. 7. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the purchases made from suspicious dealers are bogus in nature