“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

D.C.I.T., Circle-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Microsec Financial Services Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (on Ground No

ITA 2779/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2779/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2009-2010) Dcit, Circle-12, Vs. M/S Microsec Financial P-7, Chowringhee Square, Services Ltd., Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, Shivam Chambers, 53, Kolkata-69 Sayed Amir Ali Avenue, Kolkata-700019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 7147 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit Sr.Dr Assessee By : Shri D.S.Damle, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 21/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 04/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.212/Xii/12/11-12, Dated 23.09.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 16.11.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is A Non-Banking Financial Company, Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 21.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,46,66,807/- & Revised Return Of Income On 19.10.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,98,36,700/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Framed The Assessment U/S.143(3) By Making Various Disallowances.

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

assessee is a non-banking financial company, filed its original return of income on 21.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.1,46,66,807/- and revised return of income on 19.10.2009 declaring total income of Rs.1,98,36,700/-. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

Asb International Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. ACIT Cir-1, Kalyan

ITA 2137/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Karshima Phatarphekar & Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand-CIT

Section 143Section 254(1)Section 92

business of manufacture of Injection Blow Moulding Machines to its Associated Enterprise(AE),filed its return of income, declaring income of Rs.37.05Crores.Subsequently,a revised return was filed by the assessee on 28.3.2013 declaring total income at Rs.36.85 crores. During the assessment proceedings,the Assessing Officer(AO)made a reference

Piramal Glass Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 157/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 157/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) M/S Piramal Glass Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As ‘Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd.’) Income Tax 7(3)(2) बनाम/ Room No. 669A, 6Th Floor Piramal Tower Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Aaykar Bahwan Vs. Lower Parel M.K.Road, Churchgate Mumbai 400013 Mumbai 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcg-0093-R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

Section 115PSection 143(3)Section 156Section 92C

entertain the claim of the assessee on the premises that the same could be admissible only by way of filing the revised return of income. The assessee took support of CBDT circular No. 14 (XL-35) dated 11/04/1955 to assert that it was the duty of AO to grant

Prime Focus Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT OSD-1 Cen RG 7, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 6086/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Prime Focus Limited, Vs. Acit- Osd-1 Cen Rg 7, Prime Focus House, Opp. Mumbai Citi Bank, Linking Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400 052 Pan/Gir No. Aaacp6811B Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)

shooting equipment rentals, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 15/11/2007 declaring income of Rs.20,16,17,900/-. A revised return was filed on 31/03/2009 declaring income of Rs.20,23,43,199/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s.143

Precision Contaneurs Ltd (Formerly Known As Vasparr Fische Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

ITA 3449/MUM/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Ranathir Gupta

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

manufacturing drums and containers, filed its return of income on 10.12.1996 declaring Nil income after claiming depreciation of `3,68,82,042/-. A revised return was filed on 01.06.1977 declaring loss of `26,46,947/- after claiming depreciation of Rs.3,05,93,292/- for the reason that it has withdrawn ... Containeurs Ltd. 2.2 Assessment Year 1997-98 2.2.1 The assessee filed its return of income for this year on 01.12.1997 declaring Nil income. A revised return was filed on 17.03.1998 again declaring Nil income, wherein the assessee has disallowed unpaid interest to IDBI under section

Precision Contaneurs Ltd (Formerly Known As Vasparr Fische Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 9(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

ITA 3448/MUM/2011[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Ranathir Gupta

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

ACIT. Cir.-9(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Vasparr Fischer Ltd. (Now M/S. President Containers Ltd.), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1996-97

ITA 3445/MUM/2011[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2017AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri Ranathir Gupta

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

Damodar Lal Soni, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 805/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT- DR

Section 147Section 148

loss of Rs. 2,29,115/- in the return in response to notice u/s 148. It is noteworthy that the assessee never filed a revised return within the permissible time limit to claim the said loss, even though the facts were always in his knowledge. Thus, the shifting

M/S. Roshan Lal Jain & Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4392/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Venketesh Chaurasia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

escaped assessment. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 27.3.2014. The assessee vide letter dated 15.4.2014 submitted copy of the revised return stating that the same should be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Copy of reasons recorded were also supplied

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Noble Mercantile Pvt.Ltd

Appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms

ITA/411/2015HC Delhi03 Jan 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 166

original ITR, the annual income of the deceased is shown as Rs. 2,59,627/- and as per the revised return, the annual income of the deceased is shown as Rs. 4,14,606/-. It is his submission that the learned Claims Tribunal wrongly deducted the permissible savings ... Appellants that as per the original ITR, the annual income of the deceased is shown as Rs. 2,59,627/- and as per the revised return, the annual income of the deceased is shown as Rs. 4,14,606/-. Further he also contended that both the ITRs which are exhibited

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. Vesuvious India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 563/KOL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] I.T.A Nos.563&564/Kol/2011 Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05 D.C.I.T., Circle-10, -Vs.- Vesuvious India Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacv 8995 Q] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit, Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri Harish Agarwal, Ar Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2016. Order

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Harish Agarwal, AR

Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

appellant in the original return of income has claimed an amount of Rs. 29,79,001/- as deduction u/s 80HHC. Subsequently in the Revised return of income; deduction u/s 80HHC was recomputed and claimed at Rs. 28,79,554/-. Towards the said claim of the appellant a Chartered Accountant ... Certificate (along with enclosures) was duly furnished and filed along with the revised return of income. While computing deduction u/s 80HHC under the normal provisions of the Act, adjustment was made in respect of profits eligible for deduction A.Yr.2003-04 & 2004-05 u/s 80IB. Subsequently, during the course

ACIT, Chennai vs. Kec International Limited, Haryana

In the result, the Revenue appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 431/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 431/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Kec International Limited, Corporate Circle - 4(2), Vs. (Formerly Known As Rpg Chennai - 600 034. Transmission Ltd.) Dlf City, Phase -Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana - 122 002. [Pan: Aabcs 2191J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) was issued. The assessee also filed the revised return on 29.03.2010 with :-3-: I.T.A. No. 431/Mds/2016 income of Rs. 13,64,12,100/- claiming the refund. The Assessing Officer passed order u/s. 143(3) with total income ... unabsorbed depreciation and issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In compliance to the notice, assessee filed the letter dated 05.04.2013 to considered the revised return filed on 29.03.2010 and reasons for re-opening of assessment were furnished to the assessee. The Ld. AR of the assessee appeared from time

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. B. Arunkumar Capital & Credit Services P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4148/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannuthe Acit-3(1)(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. B. Arunkumar Capital & Credit Services Pvt. Ltd., 154/C, Mittal Court, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aaacb 2156M .... Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Beena SantoshFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Mody

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

letter during the assessment proceedings without appreciating the fact that the AO has rejected the same as the assessee has failed to file the revised return within the time allowable as per the IT Act, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble apex court in the case ... accept the fresh claim made by the assessee as according to him, a fresh claim can only be made by filing a revised return of income. Accordingly, the 3 Assessing Officer worked out the disallowance under section 14A of the Act by applying Rule 8D of the Rules at Rs.90

Hybrid Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

Appeals of the Assessee are hereby Partly Allowed

ITA 6571/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.6303/M/12, I.T.A. No. 326/M/14 & 6571/M/14 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10,2010-11 & 2011-12) बनाम/ Hybrid Financial Services Asst. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax 10(3) Vs. 17-A Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room No.473, Raj Industrial Estate Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Premises Ltd., Mumbai - 400020 Military Road, Marol, Andheri(East), Mumbai - 400059 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2824M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Angokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194CSection 244ASection 40

wherein it has been held that the assessee can raise a further claim before the Assessing Officer only by way of a revised return of income. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee can raised the additional ground to accept the claim before the appellate authorities in view ... dispute that the assessee did not raise his claim in his return as well as in his revised return. However he raised his claim by way of letter dated 11.11.2011. In view of the law settled by Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Pruthivi Brokers and Shareholders

Hybrid Financial Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

Appeals of the Assessee are hereby Partly Allowed

ITA 326/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Angokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194CSection 244ASection 40

Hybrid Financial Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. A, C, I.T.-10(3), Mumbai

Appeals of the Assessee are hereby Partly Allowed

ITA 6303/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri C.N.Angokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194CSection 244ASection 40

Sheela Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4007/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. RA Bansal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

sources of cash deposited in the bank a/c mounting to Rs.1,02,11,753/- during the relevant previous year. The assessee filed a "revised" return before the AO on 19.11.2013, claiming that the cash deposits were out of turnover of Rs.1,08,18,106/- from her proprietary business of trading ... cloth/grey fabric. An audited balance sheet was submitted alongwith it. The AO held that the "revised" return could only have been filed before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year, or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier, i.e. before 31.03.2013. Hence

Smt. Gayathri Balasubramaniam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2972/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.R. Duraipandian, Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 271(1)(c)

purpose of acquiring assets and still claiming the deduction u/s.24(b) of the Act. In this case, the assessee has not filed any revised return of income and the AO made addition after thorough enquiry and collection of the details and concluding that the loan funds :- 5 -: ITA No.2972/Mds./2016 ... notice of the department only after selecting the case for scrutiny and verification of the details. The assessee did not file any revised return of income. Though the assessee claimed that the assessee has taken loans for the purpose of purchase of house property, the relevant evidence was not placed

ACIT - 17(2), Mumbai vs. Jai Hind Oil Mills Company, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2569/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Acit – 17(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Jai Hind Oil Mills Company, 387-389, Narshi Natha Street, Katha Bazar, Mumbai – 400 009 Pan/Gir No. Aacfj5169K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 24Section 271(1)(c)

decided to follow the same in subsequent years by considering warehousing income as business income. Further the assessee stated that it has filed a revised return for A.Y.2012-13 also offering warehousing income as business income and paid tax thereon. The assessee stated that revised return ... could not be filed as the time limit for filing the revised return had already expired by the time the assessee received the assessment order for A.Y. 2010-11. However the AO was of the opinion that the assessee had offered income from warehousing under 'house property income' to avail

Ashutosh P. Bhatt, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-55, Mumbai

In the result, we hereby uphold the plea of assessee and Revenue fails

ITA 1526/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Joginder Singh

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Dipak Ripote

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

motu and voluntarily offered the additional income to tax; and, that the income which was offered for tax by the assessee in the revised returns of income was in any case not chargeable to tax in India. Against such a decision of the CIT(A) deleting the levy of penalty ... being the peak balance lying in the bank accounts of the said two concerns, and for this purpose the assessee filed a revised return on 20.9.2011. Subsequently, on 7.11.2011 assessee realised that he had committed a mistake in calculating the peak balance lying in the bank accounts held