← 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

Ramniklal Ratilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 6729/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Ramniklal Ratilal Mehta, Acit 13(1), 13 Champa Galli बनाम/ Room No.428. 4Th Floor Mumbai-400002 Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Vs. Mumbai (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aabpm783P Appellant By Shri Hiro Rai, (Ar) Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist (Sr. Dr)

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee did not contest the matter in quantum proceedings to avoid any litigation. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated during which the assessee reiterated that revised return was filed in A.Y. 2001-02 wherein carry forward of the impugned long term loss was claimed and though the acknowledgment of revised return

Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Cororation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1672/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2003-04 Deepak Fertilisers & Addl. Cit Range 3(1) Petrochemicals Corporation बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Rd. Limited, Vs. 10-B, Bakhtawar Mumbai Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacd1388D Appellant By Shri H.P. Mahajani, (Ar) Revenue By Shri V. Tripathi (Sr. Dr)

Section 271(1)(c)

Counsel on the ground that wherever surrendered was made in these cases that was voluntary in nature and in some cases revised return was also 5 Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals filed. Further, over-all facts of the case and pattern of behavior of the assessees in the cases relied upon

Girish C. Sangani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 828/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.828/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Girish C. Sangani, Acit – Cent. Circle – 23, बनाम/ 2/26, Kamala Bhuvan, Mumbai. V. Sahar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaeps4932R .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271A

group @2.5% of the value of accommodation bills . The difference amount of Rs.6,36,116/- was offered by the assessee to tax through a revised return filed on 23/03/3013 with the Revenue during the course of assessment proceedings with due taxes paid to the Revenue . The assessee vide reply ... deduction of brokerage paid by the assessee w.r.t. these accommodation bills provided by the assessee to the Kanakia group. The assessee agreed to file revised return of income with enhanced undisclosed income of 2.5% of the value of admitted accommodation bills and pay taxes , with the understanding that no penalty

Suman Jha, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6005/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: SH. NAVEEN JHA, ADVFor Respondent: SH. UMESH CHAND DUBEY, SR. DR
Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 144Section 148Section 44A

filed Return manually on 14/03/2012 and another return through E filling on 26/09/2012 and both return mentioned "Original" in the column, whether Original or Revised Return? During assessment A.O. has rejected the return so filed E-return on 26109/2012 and request on dated 14/03/2013 to continue E-return and withdraw ... online return was filed by 26.9.2012. This return also been filed as the “original return” and not a revised return. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumar Jagdish Chand Sinha vs. CIT 222 ITR 67 has held that the return filed

D.C.I.T Cir - 4, Kolkata vs. M/S Tata Tea Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 2006/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

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

Section 43(6)

case of CIT vs Suman Tea & Plywood Industries Pvt. Ltd in reported in 204 ITR 719. The assessee claimed the deduction through the revised return filed together with the supporting statement of depreciation schedule duly certified in support of its claim. The AO found that similar claim of the assessee ... relevant to the issue is reproduced as under: ''It is humbly submitted that the claim of depreciation made by the appellant by filing revised return is allowable in view of the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT -vs.- Suman Tea & Plywood India (P) Limited

Golani Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4596/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

income to buy peace and avoid litigation. 4. After the survey assessee voluntarily revised its return of income duly incorporating the income offered. The revised return incorporating the income offered during survey was filed on 31/03/2013. On 05/02/2014, AO issued notice under Section 148 and the re-assessment order ... framed on 30/03/2015. In the re-assessment order income was assessed as offered by the assessee in the revised return. In the re-assessment order so framed, AO has independently verified the details and found the same in order and accordingly accepted the additional income offered by the assessee. Thereafter

Golani Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4595/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

income to buy peace and avoid litigation. 4. After the survey assessee voluntarily revised its return of income duly incorporating the income offered. The revised return incorporating the income offered during survey was filed on 31/03/2013. On 05/02/2014, AO issued notice under Section 148 and the re-assessment order ... framed on 30/03/2015. In the re-assessment order income was assessed as offered by the assessee in the revised return. In the re-assessment order so framed, AO has independently verified the details and found the same in order and accordingly accepted the additional income offered by the assessee. Thereafter

Golani Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4594/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

income to buy peace and avoid litigation. 4. After the survey assessee voluntarily revised its return of income duly incorporating the income offered. The revised return incorporating the income offered during survey was filed on 31/03/2013. On 05/02/2014, AO issued notice under Section 148 and the re-assessment order ... framed on 30/03/2015. In the re-assessment order income was assessed as offered by the assessee in the revised return. In the re-assessment order so framed, AO has independently verified the details and found the same in order and accordingly accepted the additional income offered by the assessee. Thereafter

Golani Brothers, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4593/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Jeevanlal Lavedia
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

income to buy peace and avoid litigation. 4. After the survey assessee voluntarily revised its return of income duly incorporating the income offered. The revised return incorporating the income offered during survey was filed on 31/03/2013. On 05/02/2014, AO issued notice under Section 148 and the re-assessment order ... framed on 30/03/2015. In the re-assessment order income was assessed as offered by the assessee in the revised return. In the re-assessment order so framed, AO has independently verified the details and found the same in order and accordingly accepted the additional income offered by the assessee. Thereafter

Prime Developers, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Panvel Cir, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 3356/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmaआमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.3356/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) M/S Prime Developers, A-303, Vs. Acit, Panvel Circle, Mayur Chs, Sadawala Cross Panvel Lane, Borivali (West), Mumbai-92 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aajfp 5050 A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Bhadresh Doshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/102016 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

I.T.Act. 2. The only grievance of the assessee relates to action of CIT(A) in confirming the action of AO of treating the revised return of income filed by the assessee as not valid. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. In the case of the assessee ... original return of income was filed on 30-9-2009 declaring income of Rs.27,74,550/- and subsequently, a revised return of income u/s.139(5) was filed on 24-09-2010 declaring nil income. The revised return of income was filed because the assessee wanted to change the method

DCIT Cir - 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 4373/Mum/2005 is partly allowed

ITA 570/MUM/2007[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2016AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri R.C Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 115Section 253Section 254(1)Section 80

year as adjustment u/s. 145A of the Act of Rs. 1,69,49,695/-. AR of the assessee has argued that assessee in the revised return of income had adjusted the net profit for the year to the provision of section 145A which has been inserted w.e.f

Gokul Pipes, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 978/CHNY/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Oct 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 978/Mds/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Gokul Pipes, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.30/21, Dev Apartments, Income Tax, First Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, V. Business Circle – Iii, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020. Chennai - 600 034. Pan : Aahfg 9834 D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenakshisundaram, ITPFor Respondent: Shri M. Murugaboopathy, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

Assessing Officer (A.O.) by proceeding against the original return had committed an error in-as-much as he had not taken cognizance of the revised return, a valid return u/s.139(5) of the Act in-as-much as the original return was filed within the time allowed u/s.139 ... original profit and loss a/c (PB pgs. 7,13), i.e., as against the revised profit of Rs.14,83,259/-, is clearly misconceived. The revised return substitutes the original return in-so-far as the claims made by the assessee (per the original return) are concerned, without in any manner detracting

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Telecommunications Consultants India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3481/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Manglan &For Respondent: Shri Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

under normal provisions of the Act, and Book profit of Rs. 62,71,26,625/- under section 115JB. The revised return was filed by the assessee on 26.02.2003 declaring an income of Rs.26,71,33,870/- under normal provisions of the Act and Book profit of Rs.62

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITTA/392/2016HC Telangana20 Oct 2016

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 260A

other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that if an assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement, he may furnish a revised return under Section 139(5) of the Act within the time limit prescribed therein. However, once the time limit prescribed in Section

Madan Singh Bisht, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 5777/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 5777/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Madan Singh Bisht, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-31, Garjiya Cghs Ltd., Module Ward-47(2) (Now 71(2)) V, Abhay Khand-Iii, Indira Puram, New Delhi Ghaziabad, U.P.-201010 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapb4060B Assessee By : Sh. Vijay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.10.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.07.2015 Of Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 68

Rs.1,44,445/- is concerned. I find that the same has been filed only after due date prescribed in the Act for submission of revised return and for the detailed reasons recorded by the AO in his assessment order I hold AO fully justified in rejecting the revised computation Moreover

Sh. Ajeet Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-361/Del/2014 (Assessment Year 2008-09)

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)

hands of the asseessee before having received any notice/order sheet entry on said capital gain. Additionally the reason for declaration through the 'revised return of income' for the capital gain is due to two reasons 1) there was partition in business of assessee with his partners and the assessee started ... Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) wherein it is held that though the assessee surrendered additional income by way of revised returns after persistent queries by AO once the revised returns have been regularized by Revenue the explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income

DCIT(Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S. Avtec Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 296/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-296/Del/2014 (Assessment Year 2007-08)

Section 10A

Rs.34,47,74,641/- and the claim of deduction u/s 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was made at Rs.14,83,714/-. A revised return was filed on 31/3/2009 and the claim of deduction u/s 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was revised at Rs.5 ... This claim in the revised return was made on the basis of the speech of Hon’ble Finance Minister on 24/2/2009 while having discussion on the budget in Lok Sabha and replying to a query. On the basis the speech and since the company did not want to loose

Msm Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jdit (It) RG 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1929/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Jabir Chgouhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 292B

relevant facts are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring the total income of Rs. 19.08 Crs (rounded off). There was a revised return of income with the additional claims. The other facts include that the assessee was having transactions with Associated Enterprises (AEs) and therefore, the same

Winsmile Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2935/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Winsmile Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Acit-8(3), 255, Sharma Estate, S. V. Road, Mumbai. Vs. Jogeshwari (West), Mumbai. Pan: Aaacw3470D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. K.Shivaram & Rahul Hakani (Ar’S) Revenue By : Ms. Mahua Sarkar (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.10.2016 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. This Appeal U/S. 253 Of Income Tax Act (,Act’) Is Directed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai Dated 21.02.2013 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2006-07. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee-Company Filed Its Return Of Income For Relevant Ay On 21.11.2009, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.95,530/-. Subsequently, The Action U/S 133A Of The Act Was Carried Out On 08.03.2010. & The Case Of Assessee Was Reopened. Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 20.10.2010. In Response To The Notice, The Assessee-Company Filed Revised Return Of Income On 12.08.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 62,38,023/-. In The Revised Return Of Income, The Assessee Included Rs. 45 Lakhs Which The Assessee Has Write Off In Its Books Of Account In Ay 2006-07, Thus The Penalty Proceeding Was Initiated Against The Assessee & The Assessing Officer (Ao) Levied The Penalty Of Rs. 20,67,563/- Being Minimum Penalty On M/S Winsmile Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K.Shivaram & RahulFor Respondent: Ms. Mahua Sarkar (DR)
Section 133ASection 148Section 253Section 274

case of assessee was reopened. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 20.10.2010. In response to the notice, the assessee-company filed revised return of income on 12.08.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 62,38,023/-. In the revised return of income, the assessee included Rs. 45 Lakhs which the assessee ... material available on record. Ld AR of the assessee argued that no incriminating material was found during the search proceeding. The assessee has filed revised return of income on receipt of notice u/s 148. The notice u/s 148 was received on 20.10.2010 and revised return of income was filed

Asst.C.I.T., Hubli vs. Shri. Raju H Patadia, Hubli

ITA 1180/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle- 3(1) Hubballi-580025. … Appellant Vs. Shri Raju H Patadia, Prop.M/S.Gold Palace, Durgadbail, Hubballi. … Respondent Pan: Acvpp 8998B & Cross Objn.No.12/Bang/2016 (In Ita No.1180/Bang/2015) (Assessment Year: 201-011) Shri Raju H Patadia, Hubballi. … Cross-Objector Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hubballi. … Respondent Revenue By : Shri V.Sridhar, Ca Assessee By : Smt.Meera Srivastava, Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/10/2016

For Appellant: Smt.Meera Srivastava, Addl.CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri V.Sridhar, CA
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

Page 3 of 10 of Rs.38,19,474/- on account of under-valuation of the closing stock. The respondent-assessee also undertaken to file revised return offering additional income but failed to do so. Further, a sum of Rs.7,60,800/- was detected on account of undervaluation during the course ... further inferred that had the intention of the assessee had not been to conceal particulars of income, assessee would have chosen to file revised return declaring additional income. It is only due to survey operations u/s 133A undervaluation was detected. Therefore he proceeded to levy penalty of Rs.13