← 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

Redington (India) Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1155/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Jayaram Raipura, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

I.T.A. No.1155/Mds/16 I.T.A. No.1145/Mds/16 company filed its return of income on 29.11.2011 with a total income of `1,98,82,01,376/-. Subsequently a revised return was filed on 30.03.2013 with taxable income of `1,98,32,01,376/-. As the case was selected for scrutiny, notice under Section

DCIT, Chennai vs. Redington (India) Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1145/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Jayaram Raipura, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

I.T.A. No.1155/Mds/16 I.T.A. No.1145/Mds/16 company filed its return of income on 29.11.2011 with a total income of `1,98,82,01,376/-. Subsequently a revised return was filed on 30.03.2013 with taxable income of `1,98,32,01,376/-. As the case was selected for scrutiny, notice under Section

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -06 vs. M/S Menlo Worldwide Forwarding India Pvt. Ltd

Appeal are allowed and the

ITA/626/2016HC Delhi18 Oct 2016

Bench: The Cit(A). This Appeal Was Accepted By The Itat In Its Impugned Order.

Section 260ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

sides. The CIT(A) while confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, has over looked the facts that the assessee has filed revised return when the assessee company itself came to the knowledge that there was an error in its return for A.Y. 2003-04. The fact that company ... Officer at any point of time has not scrutinized 2003-2004 of the assessment on records and issued any notice before the filing of revised return. Thus, when the error was known to the assessee, the assessee itself has filed the revised return. This act shows that

Mr. Manoj Singhal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6023/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chander Dubey, Sr
Section 143(3)Section 50C

This return was revised subsequently during the course of assessment proceedings on 23.6.2010 to declare total income of Rs. 20,28,330/-. The revised return was filed to include the Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 10,30,000/- on sale of property representing plot No. 384, Niti Khand, Phase ... assessee’s contention was that since sale consideration had been shown at Rs. 80,00,000/- in his revised return, the same may be accepted. The final contention of the assessee was that, in accordance with certain judicial rulings, it is incumbent on the part of the AO, to refer

Hewlett - Packard Global Soft Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1211/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.K.Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 144CSection 250Section 263Section 92C

disregarding the computation of deduction under section 80HHE of the Act as provided in the revised return of income, as per which the amount of deduction is Rs 3,922,804. 25. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT (A) has erred on facts by not adjudicating

DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hexaware Technologies Ltd, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 725/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.725/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta
Section 10ASection 115JSection 14Section 1OSection 70Section 71Section 72

book profits u/s. 115JB without appreciating that the Explanation 2 below section 115JB was already in the statute when the assessee filed its revised return on 05/03/2012. " 8."On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance ... Finance Act, 2008 with retrospective effect from 01/04/2001 whereas the order u/s 14. Already in the statue when the assessee filed its revised return on 05/03/2012.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 31.10.2007 declaring total income

Sargam Foods P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(A) 14, Mumbai

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

ITA 3239/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessee did not declare additional income of Rs.22.00 lakhs. Subsequently, when the assessing officer asked queries about the additional income, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 28-3-2013 offering the additional income. The AO completed the assessment by accepting the income declared in the revised return

Late Shri Vishwa Nath Sahni, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3101/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. MS SEKHON, CAFor Respondent: Sh. AMRIT LAL, SR. DR
Section 111ASection 11ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

case are that the assessee filed the return declaring income of Rs. 47,31,544,/- on 22.10.2007. However, the assessee also filed revised return of income on 27-01-2009 declaring income of Rs19,18,873/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act 1961. The case ... Capital gain Income of Rs 47,31,554/- from sale of shares/units bf mutual funds, which was revised to Rs.19,18,873/-, in the revised return of income. It has been explained by the assessee that due to, wrong understanding of law entire capital gain

I.T.O WD - 46(1), Kolkata vs. Smt Juthika Kar, Howrah

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

ITA 2228/KOL/2013[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2016AY 1999-2000

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 68Section 69

which derived from other sources in the said return. Accordingly, the AO issued notice u/s. 148. In response to which, the assessee filed her revised return of income declaring a total income of Rs.1,80,850/-. The AO determined the income of the assessee at Rs.2,24,710/- to that

DCIT, CC-VII, Kolkata vs. Surya Prakash Bagla, Kolkata

ITA 857/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narsimha Chary, Jm]

For Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

that happened pursuant to decree and revised MOU dated 25.5.2009. The assessee also offered the sums of Rs. 7,40,90,000/- in the revised return for Asst Year 2010- 11 under the head ‘income from other sources’ being the cash component received on sale of shares. But during ... assessed the sums of Rs. 7,40,90,000/- as income from other sources for the Asst Year 2010-11 as disclosed in the revised return by the assessee. 4.3. The ld CITA in his order appreciated the contentions of the assessee and deleted the additions

Sri Surya Prakash Bagla, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - VII, Kolkata

ITA 1418/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narsimha Chary, Jm]

For Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

that happened pursuant to decree and revised MOU dated 25.5.2009. The assessee also offered the sums of Rs. 7,40,90,000/- in the revised return for Asst Year 2010- 11 under the head ‘income from other sources’ being the cash component received on sale of shares. But during ... assessed the sums of Rs. 7,40,90,000/- as income from other sources for the Asst Year 2010-11 as disclosed in the revised return by the assessee. 4.3. The ld CITA in his order appreciated the contentions of the assessee and deleted the additions

Sri Surya Prakash Bagla, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - VII, Kolkata

ITA 1411/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narsimha Chary, Jm]

For Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

that happened pursuant to decree and revised MOU dated 25.5.2009. The assessee also offered the sums of Rs. 7,40,90,000/- in the revised return for Asst Year 2010- 11 under the head ‘income from other sources’ being the cash component received on sale of shares. But during ... assessed the sums of Rs. 7,40,90,000/- as income from other sources for the Asst Year 2010-11 as disclosed in the revised return by the assessee. 4.3. The ld CITA in his order appreciated the contentions of the assessee and deleted the additions

Girdhari K Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s is dismissed

ITA 6292/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6292/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Girdharilal K. Agrawal Asst. Cit-12(3), बनाम/ Room No. 658, 6Th Floor, 302, Vikas Building, 11, Bank Street, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpa 1257 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Miss Arati Vissanji ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 23.06.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 05.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 11.7.2014, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 22.05.2012. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Claimed Set Off Of Loss In Commodities (Rs.14,16,135/-) Against Speculative Income, I.E., To The Extent Available (Rs.5,31,333/-) & The Balance (Rs.8,84,802/-) Against Non-Speculative

For Appellant: Miss Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran
Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 72(1)

impugned set off as clearly impermissible in law, which did not admit of two views. This was not corrected even per the revised return filed subsequently. In appellate proceedings, contesting the penalty (levied at the minimum rate of 100% of the tax sought to be evaded), the assessee emphasized ... suggesting an awareness of the legal concepts, as afore-noted, soon after receiving a notice u/s. 143(2) dated 18/8/2010, the assessee filed a revised return on 30/9/2010 setting off the entire speculative loss against non- speculative income, contrary to the understanding conveyed per the original return. On what basis

Superna R. Motwane, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8864/MUM/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.8864/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02) Mrs. Superna R. Motwane, Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Gnyanghar, 14 Th Road, Income Tax, V. Khar (West), Circle – 19(1), Mumbai -400 052. 3 Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpk5356 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap,DR
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80H

income tends to be lower than the assessed income. The assessee ought to have made the claim in the original return or in a revised return but the assessee has not done the same. The AO observed that this view is supported by the decision in the case of Goetze ... wherein it has been held that any change in stand by the assessee should have been taken through filing a revised return of income. The A.O. accordingly disallowed the claim u/s 80HHE of the Act and income was assessed ignoring the claim u/s. 80HHE of the Act as the claim

Sri Bhaskar Ghosh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-2(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 285/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Oct 2016AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

reflected in his undisclosed Bank account. At the fag end of the proceedings under section 153A read with section 143(3), the assessee filed revised returns for all the four years under consideration on 21.03.2013 declaring such undisclosed income. Although the assessments under section 153A/143(3) for all the four ... under consideration were made by the Assessing Officer vide his orders dated 31.03.2013 on the same income as declared by the assessee in his revised returns, he treated the additional income offered by the asessee on account of the transactions reflected in his undisclosed Bank account with IDBI, Gariahat Road

Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3573/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3573/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers Dy. Cit, Range 4(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ C/O. D. C. Jain & Co., R. N. 640, M. K. Road, 75, Bombay Mutual Bldg., 1St Floor, Mumbai Vs. D. N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg 3561 H (Assessee) (Revenue) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3762/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit, Range 4(1), Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers बनाम/ Room Ni. 640, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 24, 2Nd Fanaswadi, D. A. Lane, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 004 (Revenue) (Assessee) : Assessee By : Shri D. C. Jain Revenue By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 23.06.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E., By The Assessee & The Revenue, Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 13.03.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S

For Appellant: Shri D. C. JainFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran
Section 143(3)

deletion of addition made by the AO, denying the assessee’s ‘claim’ for reduction in the closing stock and, consequently, profit/income (per the revised return) by Rs.12,13,444/-, in the in the absence of any details. The entire details were examined in the remand proceedings, to find that ... given earlier being as on 04.4.2011, furnished inadvertently. We, in fact, see no issue, i.e., either in principle or on facts. The assessee’s revised return (PB pg. 1) bears no claim for any reduction in stock; it 14 ITA Nos. 3573 & 3762/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2009-10) Ghanshyam Share & Stock Brokers

M/S the Dream Development Co., Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, WD-27(1), Haldia

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1021/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. The Dream Development Company -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-27(1), Purba Medinipur Haldia [Pan: Aafft 2851 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Md.Ghayas Uddin, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2016

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md.Ghayas Uddin, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Taxman 1 (SC). The alternative remedy for the assessee to claim the deductions or reduction of income is by way of filing revised return of income or making a revision petition before the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income tax. The appellant did not appear before me and made any argument ... employees contribution to PF and ESI. However, the assessee did not make this claim in the original return and he did not file the revised return also. Therefore, the AO has disallowed the claim by following the decision of Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT [2006] 157 Taxmann

V.Mart Retail Ltd, Kolkata vs. Addl C.I.T RG - 7, Kolkata

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

ITA 2120/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri V. N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

income for the AY 2009-10 on 16.9.2009 disclosing a total income of Rs.1,33,27,140/- and on 21.9.2010 they have filed their revised return of income. Return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and in the meanwhile it was selected for scrutiny. Subsequently

Vidya K Gaonkar, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2014/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Ms. Sanjukta ChaudharyFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Wanare

return of income for the impugned assessment year originally on 29th July 2010, declaring total income of ` 16,74,343. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 18th November 2011, declaring total income of ` 30,77,260. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee

ITO 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Diwa Exports, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6141/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan ()

For Appellant: Ms. Amrita SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Ketan L. Vajani
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

assessee filed revised computation of taxable income for the above assessment years and copy of challans evidencing tax payment on the revised return of income. The AO brought to tax the above amount under section 69C in the relevant assessment years. These facts are part of the record ... income for the above assessment years declaring NIL income. Subsequently, the cases were selected for scrutiny and enquiries were conducted. Then the assessee filed revised return income offering additional income Rs. 1,25,00,000/- on adhoc basis