← 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

Bharat R. Ruia(HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 752/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja () I.T.A. No. 949 To 952 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09) Acit, Cent.Cir.47, Mumbai Bharat Ruia, Huf Prop P.R. International, Ruia House, 19, Bhausaheb Hire Marg, Malbar Hill, Mumbai-6 Pan : Aachb3596E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271

Hon1ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Prem Pal Gandhi Vs. CIT (2001) 335 ITR 23 (P&H) upheld that where revised return, showing higher income is filed after detection of concealed income by the Department, imposition of penalty would be justified. Concealment takes place on the date

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. S.M. Dyechem Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6625/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri S. A. Kanji (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income for relevant AY on 30.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. Further revised return was filed on 23.02.2007 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 11.12.2008 assessing the income

Sri. Lalanath Reddy, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 270/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Smt. Jinita Chatterjee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

notice had filed the return of income under section 153A on 29.07.2010. The original return of income was filed on 31.07.2007. In the revised return filed pursuant to section 153A, the assessee had declared an additional income of Rs.32,43,094/-. The assessee has shown to us the audited report

Krishna Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT- DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

mistake was detected by the Authorized Representative and he advised the appellant to rectify the mistake and pay the taxes by filing a revised return. Thus, a revised computation was submitted during the assessment proceedings. The Authorized Representative’s submission is that since revised computation has been submitted ... loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- on self occupied property. The assessee has accepted the mistake vide letter dated 21-10- 2010 and filed revised return of income and paid the tax on difference amount. But revised return is not treated as regular return because this return is not filed

Mosaraf Hossain, Murshidabad vs. ITO, WD.3, Kolkata, Murshidabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed

ITA 108/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)

originally on 14.07.2009 declaring total income of Rs.1,47,516/-. After the said return was processed on-line by the Department on 26.02.2010, a revised return was filed by the assessee on 17.05.2010 declaring same total income of Rs.1,47,516/-. Since the said revised return filed by the assessee

Sachidanand Padgaonkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6020/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D Karunakara Rao & Shri Cn Prasad: (A.Y : 2010-11) Shri Sachidanand Padgaonkar Vs. Ito 26(2)(3) 4 Madhukendra Aayakar Bhavan N.C.Kelkar Road Mk Road Dadar New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 028 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan : Aadpp9408J (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dinkle Hariya प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2016 घोषणा की तारीख Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Dated 19.08.2014 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 In Sustaining The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Yadav
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

claimed the credit for tax deducted at source on the interest income on fixed deposit. The TDS credit was claimed in the revised return only when it came to the notice of the Appellant  The assessee mostly residing out of India was always under a bona fide belief that

Truetzscheler India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2638/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D Karunakara Rao & Shri Cn Prasad: (A.Y : 2005-06) M/S Truetzschler India Pvt. Ltd Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Formerly Known As Trumac Circle 2(3) Engineering Co.P.Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg 43, Dr. V.B.Gandhi Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Fort, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 021 Pan : Aaact2153N (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Rushabh Vora प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2016 घोषणा की तारीख Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-6, Mumbai Dated 21.01.2014 For The Assessment Year 2005-06 Arising Out Of The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 254 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh VoraFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 254

Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of special discount of Rs.5,79,940/- on the ground that the same is not claimed by filing revised return and claimed by way of a letter during the course of assessment proceedings. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the issue of allowability ... claim in its correct perspective. Considering the fact that the 3 M/s Truetzschler India Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 2638/Mum/2014 assessee had filed the revised return to the extent of `4,75,161/- and further claim by way of letter before the Assessing Officer, we are of the opinion that

Sujata Hemlal Bakhre, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4611/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D Karunakara Rao & Shri Cn Prasad: (A.Y : 2010-11) Shri Sujata Hemlal Bakhre Vs. Ito Wd 8(3)(1) Flat No.302, Prangan Bldg. R.No.201, 2Nd Floor Malviya Road Aayakar Bhavan Vile Parle (E) Mk Road Mumbai – 400 057 New Marine Lines Pan : Aadpp9408J Mumbai – 400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sanjay B Vora प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/11/2016 घोषणा की तारीख Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N.Prasad (J.M.) : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)-18, Mumbai Dated 22.05.2013 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 In Sustaining The Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay B VoraFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)(c)

against income of Rs.4,76,538/- admitted in the original return. The assessing officer observed that for the assessment year 2010-11 no revised return has been filed and this shows that the assessee has been in the habit of claiming excessive interest expense against house property income. Thus ... deductions were made in the assessment years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. It is not in dispute that the assessee herself filed revised return for the assessment year 2009-10. This shows that the assessee all along knows that the entire interest claimed against rental income

M/S. K.L.J. Polymers & Chemicals Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1119/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiklj Polymers & Chemicals Ltd, Acit, 63, Rama Marg, Najafgarh Road, New Central Circle-4, Vs. Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaack1314Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Mohit Parekh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 4A

this issue was raised, who dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that it cannot be raised before the appellate authority without filing revised return. 9. The ld AR contested this ground by relying on para No. 6.2 of the order of the ld CIT(A) where full facts

M/S.Hotel Green Park, Aluva vs. The DCIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-10

ITA 401/COCH/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

cases where the expenses have been fully allowed. The learned DR has submitted a written submission in which it has been stated that the revised return has been filed only on long after issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer based on the impounded material ... Rs.1,03,10,112/-. The figure deducted by the Assessing Officer is that of the original return. The assessment was completed based on the revised return and the disallowance of Rs.4,58,012/- was made from the revised profit and loss account. Hence the total expenses as per this

M/S.Hotel Green Park, Aluva vs. The DCIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-10

ITA 400/COCH/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

cases where the expenses have been fully allowed. The learned DR has submitted a written submission in which it has been stated that the revised return has been filed only on long after issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer based on the impounded material ... Rs.1,03,10,112/-. The figure deducted by the Assessing Officer is that of the original return. The assessment was completed based on the revised return and the disallowance of Rs.4,58,012/- was made from the revised profit and loss account. Hence the total expenses as per this

M/S.Hotel Green Park, Aluva vs. The DCIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2009-10

ITA 399/COCH/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin02 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

cases where the expenses have been fully allowed. The learned DR has submitted a written submission in which it has been stated that the revised return has been filed only on long after issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer based on the impounded material ... Rs.1,03,10,112/-. The figure deducted by the Assessing Officer is that of the original return. The assessment was completed based on the revised return and the disallowance of Rs.4,58,012/- was made from the revised profit and loss account. Hence the total expenses as per this

Crimson Property P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and the appeal by Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2791/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 253Section 254(1)Section 43B

stated about having invested the money borrowed for acquiring ownership right in the ‘Dhanwaty house’. The assessee has not filed any revised return of income nor brought such fact before the Assessing Officer. The ld CIT (A) has no jurisdiction to entertain additional ground in absence of the facts which

Sbi Capital Markets Ltd vs. DCIT Sp RG 3

ITA 9044/MUM/1992[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2017AY 1989-90
For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh Joshi and N.A. ParadeFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S Naik-CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

about not allowing a deduction of Rs. 2.56 lakhs under the head finance charges. During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that in the revised return, filed on 04/01/1991,the assessee had claimed excess income(Rs.9.73 lakhs)as allowable deduction. He directed it to furnish details and breakups of prior

M/S. Mount Everest Mineral Water Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are partly

ITA 1498/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

Price Water Cooper (supra), in our opinion, does not render any help to the assessee, as in that case, the assessee had filed the revised return, which is not the case here. In view of decision of Hon’ble Apex court in Dharmendra Textile Processor’s case, A.O. need ... that time, the scrutiny proceedings would have also been started against the assessee as per law. However, the assessee did not file any revised return. It was only on the query of AO, the assessee admitted the default and offered the provision for taxation. It, therefore, can be hardly assumed

Annai Arul, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1608/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1608/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

year 2012-13 and further ₹.35 lakhs in the assessment year 2013-14 and pay the taxes accordingly. The assessee has not filed any revised return. In view of the above admission, ₹.35.00 lakhs was added back to the total income of the assessee for the assessment year ... were also not booked properly as some of them were paid by the partners directly. If it is so, the assessee should have filed revised return by giving suitable explanations for the omissions and commissions before completion of the assessment. However, in this case, the assessee has not filed

V.Umayal, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 714/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.714/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sahadevan, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234C

Vellayan (assessee’s husband) on 04.09.2013 and during the course of survey, the assessee admitted additional income of Rs.13,00,000/- and filed revised returns consequent to the issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act on 25.11.2013. The Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’) while computing the interest u/s.234C ... income filed in response to the notice issued u/s.148. The assessee filed petition u/s.154 before the AO objecting for charging interest u/s.234C on the revised return of income. According to the assessee, the levy of interest u/s.234C is applicable only in the case of first return of income filed u/s.139

Gvk Jaipur Expressway P Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JPR/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri G.R. Pareek (JCIT)
Section 143(3)

Escorts Finance Ltd. 328 ITR 44 (Del.) held that in the event of an inadvertent error the assessee making correction and filing revised return and offering for taxation during the assessment proceedings, no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable. 3.1. On the contrary

DCIT, Jaipur vs. M/S Modern Insulators Ltd., Jaipur

ITA 784/JPR/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.V. Gurjar fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 18Section 32(1)Section 394Section 40aSection 72A

amalgamation took place in Jan. 1994 however the scheme was sanctioned by BIFR with retrospective effect from 01-02-1992. The assessee filed revised returns of income on 31-03-1993 claiming unabsorbed losses of sick company. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee

Evonik Catalysts India P.Ltd, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(2), Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1084/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Evonik Catalysts India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, (Erstwhile Monarch Catalysts Ward-1(2), बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd.), Kalyan Vs. F1/Midc, Phase-1, Dombivli (East), Thane-421203 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacm5013G Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Evonik Catalysts India Pvt. Ward-1(2), Ltd. (Erstwhile Monarch बनाम/ Kalyan Catalysts Pvt. Ltd.), Vs. F1/Midc, Phase-1, Dombivli (East), Thane-421203 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacm5013G (Erstwhile Monarch Catalysts Pvt. Ltd.)

year under consideration, was Rs.90,67,59,607/- and the gross profit was shown at Rs.21,62,14,000/- (23.8%). The assessee filed revised return vide letter dated 10/09/2012 showing increase in taxable income of Rs.5,44,98,649/-. The said (Erstwhile Monarch Catalysts Pvt. Ltd.), return was selected