“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

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4072/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4072/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Garware Wall Ropes Limited बनाम/ Addl. Cit 5(1) Chowpatty Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Sandhurst Bridge, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400007

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 35Section 40Section 9

deleting the disallowance of Rs.1,82,02,000/- made by the A.O. u/s.35 in respect of capital expenditure on research and development without filing revised return of income.” ITA 4072/M/2014(Assessee’s appeal):- 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income ... enhanced claim of deduction on the ground that such claim has been made by the appellant after the due date of filing of revised return. Accordingly, the AO rejected the same on the ground that in the light of decision of Goetz India Ltd. such claim cannot be accepted without

DCIT 5(1), Mumbai vs. Garware Wall Ropes Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4018/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat H. ShahFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 35Section 40Section 9

Dilip Shirodkar, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6607/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

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

Section 271(1)(c)

declared the long term capital gain of Rs.7,53,667 as taxable and paid the tax due thereon. The Assessing Officer accepted the revised return and filed no appeal against the assessment order. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings, wherein the assessee furnished following explanation: “The agreement for purchase

Atul Ashar (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 2553/MUM/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2553/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03) Mr. Atul Ashar (Huf), Ito – 16(1)(4), बनाम/ 4B, 4 Th Floor, Tardeo 2 Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, V. A.C. Market, J.D. Road, Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400007. Mumbai – 400 034. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aafha3328E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri S.R. Singh,Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

assessee and Rs.33/- being interest on saving bank account was brought to tax by the Revenue , albeit the assessee had already filed revised return of income with the Revenue on 21-10-2004 i.e. prior to issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 14- 07-2005 whereby ... r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act that the aforesaid additional income has not been offered voluntarily by the assessee and the revised return was filed only after the assessee was cornered as the same was detected by the Revenue during searches on Shah Group in October 2002 , that the assessee

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Sona Steering Systems Ltd

ITA/160/2001HC Delhi13 Jul 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

event as explained in Goetze (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the bar to considering a revised return in which a claim is made for the first time applies to the AO but not to the ITA Nos. 160/2001, 166/2002, 9/2003 and 15/2004 Page

Sri. G.M. Solomon Raju, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 459/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri G.M.Soloman Raju, No.14/15, Hillside Medows, Hesarghatta Main Road, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore-560097. … Appellant Pa No.Akvps 4688 K Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(4) New No.6(3)(3) Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri C.R.Nulvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)

Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

would be entitled to take all contentions including the contention regarding taxability of the said income. Thus, the assessee cannot now contend in the revised return for the first time that the entire income is outside the purview of taxability in view of section

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

erred in law, on facts and in the circumstances of the case in not allowing the credit of TDS certificates claimed through the revised return of Rs 3,55,99,213/- and during the course of assessment proceedings amounting to Rs. 6,73,540/-. 18 That the assessing officer erred

Grabal Alok Impex Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1776/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri M.P.LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Mukundraj Chate

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 92B

However the AO refused to acknowledge the claim of the assessee on the ground that the claim was made otherwise than by filing a revised return of income. The AO observed that as per decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India

DCIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. Mattel Toys(India) P. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4350/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, Pranith GolechaFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

income on 30.09.2008 declaring a total income of Rs.3,33,17,297/-which was set off against brought forward losses.Later on,it filed a revised return of income on 24.03.2010,wherein the total income remain -ed same. However,the total income under the provision of section

Voltas Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1667/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Voltas Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(3) Voltas House - A Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Dr. Babasahed Ambedkar Road M.K. Road Chinchpokli, Mumbai 400033 Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aaacv2809D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Neil Philip

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

income on 30.09.2008 declaring total income of `2,58,85,46,954/- after set off of brought forward long term capital losses. A revised return was filed on 31.03.2010, declaring the same income as originally returned, for claiming credit for additional TDS certificates enclosed with the revised return. The return

Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 847/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Saktijit Deyreliance Natural Resources Ltd. Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Room No. 620, 6Th Floor Vs. Ambani Knowledge City Aayakar Bhavan Navi Mumbai 400710 M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent Addl. Cit, Range 7(2) Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Room No. 620, 6Th Floor H Block, 1St Floor, Dhirubhai Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Ambani Knowledge City M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Navi Mumbai 400710 Pan - Aabcr7656P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

various forms to power plants, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 31.10.2007 declaring income of `28,51,21,095/-. A revised return of income was filed on 19.03.2008 declaring income of `28,51,21,595 /-, wherein, inter alia, the claim of TDS in the revised return

Addl CIT 7(2), Mumbai vs. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1425/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghavi &For Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

Hewitt Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd.., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty had been rightly imposed. It was also submitted that the revised computation submitted by the assessee cannot be taken as a substitute for revised return and that even the offer for revision was made during the course of assessment proceedings when the same was detected

E Commerce Magnum Solutions Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 3179/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2016AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-CIT-DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 254(1)Section 40

whom interest was paid had filed its return u/s.139 of the Act and had no tax liability,that HL had filed its revised return on 01.02. 2013 and had reversed its claim for credit of TDS that was receivable from the assessee,that the scheme of Section ... that amendment to the provisio to section 40(a)(ia)was retrospective and curative,that the deductee had disclosed the entire amount in its revised return of income,that it had not claimed credit for TDS, that the assessee had also filed revised return based on the judgment of Hindustan

Jagdeep Singh Bhati, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1471/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Tandon &For Respondent: Mrs Rishpal Bedi, JCIT

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

facts of the case as recorded in the assessment order are that the assessee filed his return declaring income of Rs.4,20,426/-. A revised return was filed on 22.3.2011, inter alia, declaring interest income of Rs.2,38,993/-. The AO recorded that since the revised return was filed after ... record. The AO has imposed the penalty qua the interest income of Rs.2,38,993/- which was offered by the assessee in the revised return of income on the ground that such revised return was filed after the issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. I have gone

Siddhi Gold India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Addl. CIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1778/CHNY/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Jul 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1778/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S. Siddhi Gold India Pvt. Ltd., The Additional Commissioner Of 617, Janani Complex, Raja Street, Vs. Income Tax, Range- I, Coimbatore 641 001. Corporate Range, [Pan: Aalcs3941G] Coimbatore. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Muthukumaran, Irs (Retd.) ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. R. Ilavarasi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.04.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.07.2016 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) I, Coimbatore, Dated 13.01.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is With Regard To Confirmation Of Disallowance Of Commission Payment Made By The Assessee To Its Agents.

For Appellant: Shri N. Muthukumaran, IRS (Retd.)For Respondent: Smt. R. Ilavarasi, JCIT

Section 143(2)

return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 24.12.2011 declaring total income of ₹.1,69,700/- and later the assessee filed revised return on 31.03.2012 declaring total of ₹.4,84,042/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice under section

D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata. vs. M/S Uco Bank, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and that of Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 911/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 212Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

erred in allowing the claim of assessee which was during the course of assessment was disallowed on the ground that no revised return was filed. 23. The relevant issue raised by the assessee is not very clear from the ground of appeal. However, at the time of hearing ... return.” Respectfully following the precedents of the various High Courts, the assessee is very much entitled make a legal claim without filing the revised return of income. We uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) and this ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 25. In the result, assessee

Uco Bank, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 6, Kolkata.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed and that of Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 585/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 212Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

Jaspinder Singh Kang, Mumbai vs. DCIT 26(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7695/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, (Am) Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay Mehta & Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Santosh Mankoskar

Section 143(2)Section 28

Capital Gain‟ of Rs. 2,92,752/- arising from the share transactions of the assessee were found reflected in either his original or the revised return of income, therein admitted the lapse on his part and offered the aforesaid respective amounts for taxes. 2.2 The A.O further on the basis ... that the same was received during the year under consideration itself, and had offered the same for taxes only by way of filing a „Revised return‟, while for on the other hand he had gone a step further and pathetically failed to show both in his original as well

Sundial Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7562/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5674/Mum/2012 & M/S Sundial Investments Pvt. बनधम/ The Asstt. Commissioner Of Ltd, Income Tax-Circle 3(3), Vs. 127 Jolly Maker Chambers, Mumbai. Nariman Points, Mumbai-400021 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacs9845C अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Anuj Kishnadwalla प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri Love Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :30.06.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: These Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Cit(A) Dated 15.5.2012 & 21.10.2013 & They Pertain To The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical / Inter-Connected, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Appeal Wise Adjudication Is Given In The Succeeding Paragraphs.

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

ground that mere filing of the revised statement of income was not sufficient and the same was not filed by way of revised return and therefore not acceptable. Finally, the AO after considering the submissions of the assessee from time to time framed the assessment ... following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Goetze India Ltd(supra) that the claim was not by filing revised return, therefore, mere filing the revised computation of income would not entitle the assessee to the said deduction of interest. The issue was taken