“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

DCIT (It) 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashutosh P Bhatt, Mumbai

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

ITA 1104/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

DDIT (It) 1(1), Mumbai vs. Ashutosh P Bhatt, Mumbai

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

ITA 6034/MUM/2014[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)

ACIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6647/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 80

seen that while granting the said deduction in assessment year 2001-02, the AO has considered the claim of the appellant as per revised return filed on 28.03.2003, wherein deduction of Rs.1,32,60,000/- (being 30% of the profits of eligible business) was claimed on the new power plant ... order for assessment year 2001-02 that the relevant working of the 80IA claim on the new power plant was filed along with the revised return of income. It is also observed by the AO in the assessment order that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter

Shriniwas Gangadhar Mittapalli, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1677/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh: (A.Y : 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Pranit TannaFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist

respect of cash credit as he found that the opening balance in the Capital account as on 1.4.2006 after considering the revised return for 2 Shriniwas Gangadhar Mittapalli Assessment Year 2005-06, as claimed by the assessee, would be Rs.19,53,27,981/-, while assessee has shown the opening balance ... Rs.54,42,249/- and referred to page 2 of the assessment order as well as the letter requesting the Assessing Officer to refer to revised return filed by the assessee for Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07, and on that basis it was pointed out that there

Raptakos Brett and Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2251/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनधम/ M/S Raptakos Brett & Co.Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Of 253, Dr.Annier Besant Road, Income Tax, Vs. Room No.559, 5Th Floor, Worli, Mumbai-400030 Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aaacr1772R अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Appellant By Shri Yogesh Thar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Shri B Pruseth सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.12.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.2.2015, Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Setting Aside The Assessing Order & Directing The Ao To Withdraw The Deduction Allowed By The Ao In Respect Of Advance To Subsidiary Written Off & Charged To The Profit & Loss Account.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 256Section 263

facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 25.11.2011 declaring a total income at Rs.89,94,00,245/-. Thereafter revised return was filed u/s 139(5) of the Act declaring a total income of Rs.89,74,89,327/-. The return processed

Mohd. Aslam Khan, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1589/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am Shri. Mohd. Aslam Khan. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax 312, Henna Shopping 19(2), Mumbai Vs. Areade,S.V. Road, Jogeshwari(W), Mumbai-400102 Pan No.Aacpk5233D .. Appellant Respondent Assessee By .. Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, Ar .. Shri. C.S. Sharma, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing .. 22-12-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 22-12-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 131kSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

taken on 07.01.2013. The assessee couldn’t consult the tax professionals before that. The assessee retracted the surrender in as much as no revised return was filed endorsing the surrender and subsequently an affidavit was filed before the Department in April 2013 retracting the surrender made in the course

M/S Balaka Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 190/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(1)Section 154

assessee. However, AO disregarded the claim of assessee by holding that there is no mistake apparent from the record. The assessee should have filed revised return of income to amend the total income as declared by assessee. 6. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT who upheld the order ... return, no rectification could have been done. If there was any mistake in the original return filed, the assessee ought to have filed a revised return. Taking all these fact into consideration, appellant’s appeal for consideration of rectification petition, is not accepted.” Being aggrieved by this, assessee has come

Dr Sarita Milind Davare, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2187/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Ramlal Negi (Jm) I.T.A. No. 2187/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year 2009-10)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

hands of the assessee u/s 132 of the Act on 12.1.2010. 2187&1789/M/14 Dr. Sarita Milind Davare Subsequently the assessee filed a revised return of income on 31.3.2010 declaring a total income of Rs.2,56,11,923/-. 3. Consequent to the search operations, the assessing officer issued notice u/s 153A

DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), Mumbai vs. Gold Star Jewellry P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

ITA 7348/MUM/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Dcit – 8(1), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Gold Star Jewellery Ltd., Unit Iii-A, Gold Star House, Black “C”, Plot 16P, 17,28 & 29, Seepz-Sez, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400096 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg3264B Appellant) .. Respondent) & M/S. Gold Star Jewellery Vs. Dcit – 8(1), Mumbai Ltd., Unit Iii-A, Gold Star House, Black “C”, Plot 16P, 17,28 & 29, Seepz-Sez, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400096 Pan/Gir No. Aaacg3264B Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 10ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 234Section 263Section 80H

determining the income at Rs.4,24,17,060/- as against the income of Rs.3,67,70,300/- declared in the revised return of income. The AO has recomputed the deduction u/s.80HHC of the Act by taking into account the profits of the business, export turnover and total turnover of both

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi IV vs. Dlf Universal Ltd

ITA/159/2010HC Delhi21 Dec 2016

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143Section 145(1)

sells them, declared an income of `8,59,28,760/- in its return dated 30.11.1994. This was processed on 28.03.1995. Later it filed a revised return on 3.10.1996 declaring a loss of `93,39,470/-. The original assessment under Section 143 (3) was made on 31.03.1997 by which the income

Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 401/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 401/Mum./2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009–10) M/S. Rallis India Ltd. C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Army & Navy Building ……………. Appellant 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G. Road Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aabcr2657N V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–3(3), Mumbai 400 020 आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 489/Mum./2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009–10) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–3(3), Mumbai 400 020 V/S M/S. Rallis India Ltd. C/O Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Army & Navy Building ……………. Respondent 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G. Road Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan – Aabcr2657N निर्धाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri M.M. Golvala A/W Shri K. Bulsara रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Jain सुिवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 26.09.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Golvala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain

Section 4Section 80I

under consideration, assessee filed its return of income on 29th September 2009, declaring total income of ` 91,47,89,900. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 29th March 2011, declaring total income of ` 84,33,81,255. In the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer while

Gujarat Glass P. Ltd(Earlier Known As Gujarat Glass P. Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 8360/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No. 8360/Mum./2010 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006–07) Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Piramal Glass Ltd.) …….………. अऩीऱधथी / Piramal Tower, G.K. Marg Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aabcg0093R V/S Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्यथी / Circle–6(3), Mumbai Respondent ननधधाररती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar रधजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri N.K. Chand सुनवधई की तधरीख / आदेश घोषणध की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing – 03.10.2016 Date Of Order – 16.12.2016 आदेश / Order शक्तिजीि दे, न्याययक सदस्य के द्वारा / Per Saktijit Dey, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand

Section 115JSection 32(1)(ii)

profit of Rs.33,07,31,397/- u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short „the Act‟). Subsequently, on 1.11.2007 assessee filed a revised return of income declaring NIL income under the normal provisions and book profit of Rs.18,26,32,081/- u/s 115JB of the Act. During

Laxmi Narayan Yadava, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4973/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

For Appellant: Shri Satish Kumar Dhingra, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, DR

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)

same should be allowed as deduction. The AO denied this claim by observing that such a claim was not entertainable otherwise than through a revised return. For this proposition, he relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze India ... held that though the AO has no power to entertain claim made otherwise than by way of revised return, but, the powers of the appellate authorities are not affected by it. In view of this judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the Tribunal has power

M/S. M.J. Charitable Trust, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3526/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 72

college as well as hospital. During the course of original assessment proceedings it was gathered by the AO that the assessee had filed a revised return wherein loss of Rs. 5.83,85,975/- was to be carried forward to the assessment year 2007-08. The AO did not allow

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Uop India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2332/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sheel Vardhan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

brief facts of the case are that assessee filed the original return of Rs. 9,46,23,915/- and subsequently filed the revised return of Rs. 10,20,74,658/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny. In this case the AO had made the disallowance

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Granite Gate Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2239/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sapra, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT (DR)

Section 271

original return for AY 2011-12 the assessee had declared a loss of Rs. 10,18,49,703/-. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return declaring a loss of Rs. 21,22,38,055/-. In the previous year relevant to AY 2011-12 the assessee did recognise revenue in respect ... income of the assessee at Rs. 5,67,046/- as against loss of Rs. 21,22,38,055/- declared by the assessee in the revised return for the AY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of IT Act separately. In this context

M/S. Stella Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee partly allowed

ITA 6308/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Manjani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 43BSection 80G

total income of the assesee which in our considered opinion is contrary to law, because there is no need to file the revised return and during the course of assessment proceedings the assessee has requested vide letter dated 19.11.2011 and claimed the deduction of donation which has not been found

Smt. Sucharita Kar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-55(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2239/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 41Section 41(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

from other sources. The Assessee filed her return of income on 31.07.2010 disclosing a total income of Rs.6,50,835/- and again filed a revised return on 28.08.2010 showing total income of Rs. 6,46,900/-. Under scrutiny notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued.During the course

D.C.I.T Cir - 12, Kolkata vs. M/S Berger Paints India Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1105/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(1)Section 80I

were issued. In response to which, the assessee filed its various details. 6. Thereafter, the assessee filed its revised return of income on 31-03- 11 declaring at Rs.74,73,92,690/- and claiming refund of Rs.25,34,998/-. During course of proceedings the assessee claimed its income eligible

Sri Bablu Sur, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-44(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 970/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitabha Bhattacharya, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 54F

building account as on 31.3.2004 was Rs. 14,22,035/- and as on 31.3.2005 it was Rs. 15,40,076/-. The assessee also filed revised return of income within the prescribed time along with the personal balance sheet wherein the investment in building was reflected