← 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

Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1473/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm Maharashtra Agro Industries Asst. Commissioner Of Development Corporation Ltd Income Tax, Circule 6 (3) Mumbai, R.No. 522, 5 Th Floor, Krushiudyog Bhavan, Aarey Milk Vs. Colony, Georegaon (E), Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400065 Mumbai-400020 Pan : Aaact1546M .. Appellant Respondent

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO and CIT (A) erred rejecting the revised return filled by Appellant. ii) the above ground may please be set aside to the CIT(A) or AO, as the grounds was not pressed before the CIT (A) due to miss

Sujan Parikh, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir-Xxxx, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed where as appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated herein above

ITA 1846/MUM/2009[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2007-2008
For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsianFor Respondent: Shri B. Pruseth
Section 143(3)

rival contentions and found that this ground was raised before the AO, however, in view of the fact that assessee has not filed any revised return with regard to the capital gains originally offered in the return of income, the AO has declined to consider assessee’s claim of amount ... which includes the said capital gain. The said return was filed voluntarily by the assessee u/s 139 (1). No revised return has been filed by the assessee till date. However vide AR letter dated 15.05.2008, it is stated that out of ignorance of legal position this has been offered

Rattanchand Rikhabdas Jain Chemicals Works, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1532/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 80I

appellant has never stated that the project was not completed before 31st March, 2013. 5. The appellants have filed the revised return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 3rd march, 2014 claiming the deduction u/s 80IB (10) of the Act." 3. The assessee has developed the Housing Project ... stated that due to wrong impression, the assessee first withdrawn his claim and then revised the same claim before the AO by filing a revised return for AY 2012-2013 dated 03-03-2014 during the pendency of assessment proceedings. The learned counsel for the assessee informed that this claim

Ratanchand Rikhabdas Jain Chemicals Works, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1531/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 80I

appellant has never stated that the project was not completed before 31st March, 2013. 5. The appellants have filed the revised return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 on 3rd march, 2014 claiming the deduction u/s 80IB (10) of the Act." 3. The assessee has developed the Housing Project ... stated that due to wrong impression, the assessee first withdrawn his claim and then revised the same claim before the AO by filing a revised return for AY 2012-2013 dated 03-03-2014 during the pendency of assessment proceedings. The learned counsel for the assessee informed that this claim

M/S Bagmane Developers Pvt Ltd vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/183/2014HC Karnataka03 Nov 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

thereafter, notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee and the assessee during the month of January 2007 filed revised returns declaring business loss of Rs.1,05,77,033/- and business income and capital gain at Rs.56,97,511/-. The Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings ... business income’. He submitted that it is only after the search proceedings when the opportunity was available to the assessee, it has filed revised returns and a contrary stand is made by showing the land as ‘capital asset’ and the difference is considered as that of a ‘capital gain

Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/S. Bagmane Developers Pvt Ltd

ITA/145/2011HC Karnataka03 Nov 2016

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

thereafter, notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee and the assessee during the month of January 2007 filed revised returns declaring business loss of Rs.1,05,77,033/- and business income and capital gain at Rs.56,97,511/-. The Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings ... business income’. He submitted that it is only after the search proceedings when the opportunity was available to the assessee, it has filed revised returns and a contrary stand is made by showing the land as ‘capital asset’ and the difference is considered as that of a ‘capital gain

Springbird Educations Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. Ward 4(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4471/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar: (A.Y : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)Section 80G

Assessing Officer, however, denied the deduction observing that assessee has not claimed deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) in the return of income nor any revised return was filed and it was only deduction u/s 80GGA which was claimed. The Assessing Officer referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court ... claim in the original return was for deduction u/s 80GGA of the Act and as per the letter of assessee’s representative dated 17.8.2011, revised return was filed for the claim u/s 35(1)(ii)/(iii) of the Act. Therefore, he concluded that since there is 4 M/s. Springbird Educations

DCIT OSD 1(1), Mumbai vs. The Saraswat Co-Op Bank P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result all the six appeals i

ITA 8622/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8622/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) The Deputy Commissioner Of The Saraswat Co-Operative बनाम/ Income Tax(Osd),1(1) Bank Limited V. Room No. 540/564, 5 T H Floor Madhushree, Plot No. 85 Aayakar Bhawan, M K Road District Navi Mumbai- New Marine Lines 400 703 Mumbai-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaact5543L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 14A

made by the assessee itself out of the total interest paid on the entire borrowed funds. It was observed by the AO that vide revised return of income filed by the assessee, the assessee has claimed Rs. 61,76,025/- which represents borrowing cost which had earlier been capitalized ... notionally allocated the interest debited by the assessee to Profit and Loss Account to the construction of the building account but in the revised return of income filed with the Revenue , the same were claimed as allowable expenditure which was not accepted by the AO and to the extent interest

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1294/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT-I (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 211(6)Section 244A

facts, in not considering the revised Book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, as computed by the Company under the Revised Return of Income filed by it without assigning any reasons thereof. 13. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts, by failing to adjust the amalgamation ... source (“TDS”) to an aggregate amount of INR 49,79,797 as against INR 53,77,886 claimed by the Appellant in its Revised Return of Income resulting into reduction of TDS claim by INR 3,98,089 and reduction in refund claim by INR 3,98,089 together with

Soundarya Decorators Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 539/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.539/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri. Supriya Pal, IRS, JCIT

Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 submitted that no claim other than those made through a valid revised return could be considered by the ld. Assessing Officer. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. 6. Letter dated 28th March

ITO, Tiruppur vs. M/S. Saravana Rice Mill, Tiruppur

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

ITA 2039/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2039/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, M/S Saravana Rice Mill, Ward – 2(2), V. No.2/790, Tirupur Main Road, Tirupur. Pongaigoundenpalayam, Palladam, Tirupur – 641 664. Pan : Aarfs 3907 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: Shri R. Kumar, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 32

Departmental Representative, submitted that the assessee claimed depreciation at the rate of 80% on the windmill in the original return. However, in the revised return, the assessee claimed depreciation at the rate of 15%. Both the original return and revised were filed after the due date prescribed under Section

DCIT 23(3), Mumbai vs. S.R. Brothers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby

ITA 733/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vishwas V. MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri G. Nantha Kumar
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

assessee filed the return of income on 28.09.2011 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.1,66,12,319/-. The assessee has filed revised return on 13.10.2011 by declaring total income to the tune of Rs.1,67,05,230/-. The return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income

Vanita H. Alimchandani, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 506/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain Mrs. Vanita H. Alimchandani Income Tax Officer-19(2)(2) C/O. M.R. Sharma & Co. Piramal Chambers E-8, Poonam Darshan Mumbai 400012 Vs. Poonam Nagar, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400093 Pan – Agypa7278C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.R. LakshminarayanFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

related to assessee's claim for deduction of disallowable expenditure incurred in respect of it's A.E. and that the assessee had filed belated revised return withdrawing the claim for deduction of said expenditure. 4. The learned CIT (A) failed to note that appellant's bonafide belief that amount received

Destimoney India Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the both the appeals filed by the assessee is hereby

ITA 3055/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3055/Mum/15 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ Destimoney India Services The Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax – 6 Vs. Shop No.5, Ground Floor, Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Sahjeevan Chs, Aaykar Bhavan, N.M.Joshi Marg, Mumbai - 400020 Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd1326K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3056/Mum/15 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ Destimoney Enterprises The Commissioner Of Ltd. (Formerly Known As Income Tax – 6 Vs. Destimoney Enterprises Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd.) Aaykar Bhavan, Shop No.5, Ground Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Sahjeevan Chs, N.M.Joshi Marg, Elphinstone Road (West) Mumbai – 400013 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccd5100F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Kotadia Department By: Shri P. R. Ghosh

For Appellant: Shri Prakash KotadiaFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Ghosh
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

case are that the assessee filed the return of income on 27.09.2011 showing total loss to the tune of Rs.5,79,50,090/-. The revised return was filed on 31.03.2013 wherein total income has been shown as Nil. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Income ... claim of set-off of unabsorbed depreciation was made by the appellant in the return of income disregarding the fact that in the revised return of total income, the appellant has duly set-off brought forward business loss to the extent of taxable income.” 4. The assessee has also filed

M/S the Philanthropic Society of the Orthodox Church, Kolkata vs. DDIT (Exemptions)-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Year:2011-12

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

provisions of section 11 of the Act in isolation. Having regard to the other provisions of the Act regarding filing of the return or revised return or rectifying the defects in the return, the provisions of section 11 of the Act are directory in the sense that the Assessing Officer

ITO 25(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Prvin T Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6799/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Bharti Singh(DR)For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Singh (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 194CSection 253Section 40

case, the assessee deposited the TDS amount on 07.04.2007. Return of income for the relevant AY was fled on 17.10.2007 and subsequent revised return of income on 10.12.2007. Thus, the amount of TDS was paid before the filing of return of income, thus, the disallowance is not sustainable in view

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Thane vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5954/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dilip Kumar Phoolchand Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir-2 Prop M.S. Globe Enterprises, 102/108 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Jagannath Chawl, Phanswadi R.No. 16Z, Wagle Indl Estate, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane Thane(W)- 400604 Thane - 421302 Pan No. Aarpj1996K

For Appellant: Shri. Subodh Ratna ParkhiFor Respondent: Shri. B.S. Bisht
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

shown as sale price of the shares shall not be treated as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act. Then, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 20/12/2007 increasing the business income by Rs. 17,95,551/-. Also, the cash-in-hand was reduced from ... also harboured doubts about obtaining the relevant information from the broker who was not cooperating. To overcome this defect, the assessee voluntarily filed a revised return of income on 20/12/2007 wherein income of Rs. 17,95,551/- was additionally offered to tax and cash balance to the extent

J.R Diamonds P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 5772/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5771 & 5772/Mum/2014 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) बनाम/ M/S J R Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 806, The Plaza, 8Th Floor, Central Circle 1, Vs. 55, Gamdevi, Grant Road, Mumbai Mumbai-400007 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaacj1241R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

revised return of income of AY.08-09 filed on 06/12/2010, it has enhanced the additional income of Rs.6,75,00,0001- to Rs.8,75,00,0001- voluntarily offered for tax consequent to the search action. ii) Therefore, the assessee has disclosed additional income of Rs.10,00,00,000/- in the return

J.R Diamonds P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1, Mumbai

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

ITA 5771/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5771 & 5772/Mum/2014 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09) बनाम/ M/S J R Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 806, The Plaza, 8Th Floor, Central Circle 1, Vs. 55, Gamdevi, Grant Road, Mumbai Mumbai-400007 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aaacj1241R (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh P ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Section 10ASection 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

revised return of income of AY.08-09 filed on 06/12/2010, it has enhanced the additional income of Rs.6,75,00,0001- to Rs.8,75,00,0001- voluntarily offered for tax consequent to the search action. ii) Therefore, the assessee has disclosed additional income of Rs.10,00,00,000/- in the return

Jignesh L Chheda, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1450/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1450/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Jignesh L. Chheda Ito, Ward-18(3)(2), A-2, Dinathwadi, 1St Floor, Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ L. J. Road, Opp. City Light Cinema, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 Vs. Matunga (Bb), Mumbai-400 016 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpc9651N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sameer Dalal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Johri

For Appellant: Shri Sameer DalalFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Johri
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessee and additional income from LIC commission in the revised computation. As the assessee failed to disclose the income by filing the revised return of income within the due date, the AO brought to tax Rs.85,000/- under the head ‘other income’. 5. The ld. CIT(A) mentions that