← 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

M/S Ilc Industries Ltd., Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 767/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40aSection 80Section 80H

Rs.3,44,42,860/-. The said return of income was revised on 10/3/2006 disallowing transport expenditure u/s 40a(ia) of Rs.49,80,906/-. Thus revised return was filed disclosing income of Rs.3,79,29,500/-. Against the said return of income, assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 27/4/2006

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sunil Saigal, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 3450/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2016AY 2007-08
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)

situated in Village Gunial, Dehradun, Uttranchal actually took place in F.Y. 2011-12 (A.Y. 2012-13), for which the appellant has already filed his revised return of income voluntarily. I therefore direct the A.O. to work out the refund due to the appellant for A.Y. 2007-08 and adjust

Asst CIT Cir 4, Thane vs. Amol Antony Periera, Thane

In the result appeal filed by the revenue for the Asst

ITA 6237/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu (Am) & Shri. Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. A. RamchandranFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Paranjpe
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 40

basis of the said document the assessee’s father declared unaccounted income of Rs. 18,50,000/-. The assessee admitted the same and filed revised return on 25/03/2010 declaring total income of Rs. 28,86,500/-. During the assessment proceedings it was found that the assessee has not deducted

M/S Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2487/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. Vartik RFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

originally filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-11 on 13.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.723,16,22,035. Subsequently revised return of income was filed on 14.10.2011 declaring income of Rs.577,15,94,117. The main reason for the variation in the total income ... original return and revised return of income was that dividend income received by the appellant-society’s Branch in Oman from OMIFCO, Oman amounting to Rs.144,11,73,150 was excluded on the ground that the said income was earned by the P.E. of the appellant-society in Oman

M/S. M.G. Contractors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 7034/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Suresh Chandra Mittal (supra) has been pleased to hold that once the revised returns have been regularized by Revenue the explanation of the assessee that he has declared additional income to buy peace and to come ... treated as bona fide and penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable, though the assessee had surrendered additional income by way of revised returns after persistent queries by the Assessing Officer. This decision also supports the case of present assessee, rather it is on better footing

M/S E & E Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT - 4, Kolkata

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

ITA 1299/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

chemicals. The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,82,33,290/- on 03-10-2010. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 18-06-2011, wherein the claim of credit under MAT was increased. Under scrutiny notices

Quality Vmg Bus Depot Project, Mumbai vs. DCIT (TDS) 2(2)

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4193/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri K.B. DesaiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar
Section 154Section 244A

Depot Project return. Subsequently, realising that there was no requirement for deduction of tax at source on the interest payment, the assessee filed a revised return of income as well as revised TDS return. During the assessment proceedings, it was submitted by the assessee that neither the assessee had issued ... fact that the assessee has paid the TDS amount to the Government account in the financial year 2004–05 and after filing its revised return and completion of assessment on 28th March 2008, , the assessee for the first time claimed the refund in letter dated 29th November 2008 and thereafter

Young Presidents Organisation (Chennai Chapter), Chennai vs. DDIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1900/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1900/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Youngs The Deputy Director Of Income Tax Organisation (Chennai Chapter), V. (Exemptions) – I, 9, Cathedral Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 086. Pan : Aaaty 0382 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 164(2)Section 25

surcharge by the Assessing Officer. 2 I.T.A. No.1900/Mds/15 3. Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee filed the revised return. However, the exemption under Section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") was not claimed. In the original return, the assessee ... wrongly claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Act. Therefore, by way of revised return, the assessee computed taxable income. The Assessing Officer treated the assessee as Association of Person under Section 164(2) of the Act and levied tax. The Assessing Officer has also levied surcharge. According

DCIT, Chennai vs. Chettinad Builders Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 829/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. K.B. Muralidaran, C.A
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 801ASection 80I

manufacturing and selling of ready mix concrete and filed Return of income electronically on 30.09.2011 with total income of "12,51,60,370/-. Subsequently Revised Return of income was filed on 23.12.2011 with total income of "12,50,59,350/- and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued

D.C.I.T. Cir - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S Anisha Estate & Finance Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 322/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G

Income-tax (supra), I am of the view that the appellate authorities are within their jurisdiction to allow deduction u/s. 80G, even if no revised return was filed at the assessment stage, if the facts of issue are available on records. Thus, Ground No.1 is decided in favour of appellant ... deduction benefit was denied by the AO as the assessee failed to claim the same in its original return and no revised return was filed for the same. In this backdrop of the case we find that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit for which he is entitled

D.C.I.T Cir - 2, Kolata, Kolkata vs. M/S Ikf Technologies Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2273/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 8I

during assessment proceedings, claim for deduction under s. 80-IB by way of an application was admissible—There was no requirement for filing any revised return—No substantial question of law arises—Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 182 : (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) distinguished Assessee having ... assessment proceedings, claiming deduction under s. 80-IB which was not claimed in the return, deduction is admissible even in the absence of a revised return.” Similarly, the Hon’ble ITAT, COCHIN BENCH in the case of Thomsa Kurian Vs. ACIT 106 ITD 158 has decided the issue as under

DCIT, Circle - 8, Kolkata vs. M/S. Unique International Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1295/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Vishwanethra Ravi

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 72A

return of income for the year under consideration was originally filed by it on 29.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs.42,90,186/-. Subsequently a revised return was filed by the assesese on 04.12.2007 declaring total income at ‘nil’ and book profit under section 115JB of the Act at Rs.1

Gannon Dunkerley & Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 35, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7178/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm M/S Gannon Dunkerley & Co. Ltd., Acit Cc-35, 3Rd Floor, New Excelsior Building, Vs. Room No. 105, Aayakar A. K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai- Bhavan, M.K. Road, 400001. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No.: Aaacg1846P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : None. Revenue By : Shri Vivek Perampurna (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 07/09/2016 O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Jm: 1. The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Mumbai Dated 02.09.2016 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Relevant Ay On 15.10.2010. The Return Of Income Was Selected For Scrutiny. While Framing The Assessment, The Ao Besides The Addition/Disallowance Made A Disallowance Of Rs. 10,10,837/- On Account Of Delay In Deposit Of Employee Provident Fund Contribution In The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.13. Aggrieved By The Order Of Ao, Assessee Field Appeal Before The Cit(A) But Without Any Success. Thus, The Present Appeal Is Filed Before Us Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (DR)
Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

authorities below and argued that the assessee made the claim after filing return of income and after expiry of time allowed for filing revised return of income and the claim of assessee was not acceptable. On specific queries, if the contribution of PF was deposited by the assessee, before ... made the disallowance holding that the assessee made claim after filing of return of income and after expiry of time allowed for filing of revised return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) also concluded that assessee has not filed revised return claiming deduction

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Power Master Engineers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated as dismissed

ITA 6584/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, Ms. UshaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh (AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL

M/S. Parshotam Dass Dhiman, Sonepat vs. ACIT, Sonepat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5913/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. Sreenivasa Rao, Sr. DR
Section 80C

erred in: 1. In confirming the following additions- a) Rs.1,02,059/- on account of interest income without taking into consideration the revised return; b) Rs.3,49,000/- on account of alleged low household drawings . c) Rs.70,000/- on account of PPF deposit; 2 Parshotam Dass Dhiman 2. not deleting

DCIT, Chennai vs. Tnq Books and Journals Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 901/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.901/Mds/2016 & C.O. No.76/Mds/2016 (In I.T.A. No.901/Mds/2016) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCITFor Respondent: Sh. V. Ravichandran, CA
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 148

Referring to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that no alternative claim was made by the assessee in the form of revised return. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) ought not to have allowed the claim of the assessee for the year under consideration

Kumar V. Vasani, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3119/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year:2009-10

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

supra), the assessee surrendered additional income, during survey, to buy peace with the 6 Mr. Kumar V. Vasani Department and filed a revised return accordingly. There is a categorical recording of the Tribunal that there was no material to infer concealment of income but that

Richa Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4163/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 150(2)

return of income for the AY. 2006-07 on 23.10.2006 vide acknowledgement no. 57002114. This return was revised on 23-11- 2006 and the revised return declaring nil income was filed vide acknowledgement no. 67005046. The return was processed

Ge Money Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 13/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to process the revised Return of Income filed by the Appellant for captioned year on March 20, 2007 by holding that the Appellant did not press this ground before ... observed as under: “In ground no. 10 ( sic. Correct ground is no. 9), the appellant has raised the issue of non-processing of revised return of income filed by the appellant company on 20.03.2007. However, in the course of hearing the ld. counsels have not pressed the ground

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ge Money Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5854/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri C.M. Garg :

For Appellant: Shri Balbir Singh Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 234Section 32Section 45

circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not directing the Assessing Officer to process the revised Return of Income filed by the Appellant for captioned year on March 20, 2007 by holding that the Appellant did not press this ground before ... observed as under: “In ground no. 10 ( sic. Correct ground is no. 9), the appellant has raised the issue of non-processing of revised return of income filed by the appellant company on 20.03.2007. However, in the course of hearing the ld. counsels have not pressed the ground