“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

Pandurang Naig, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 32, Mumbai

ITA 7089/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7089/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, Vs. Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.7364/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Shri Pandoo P. Naig, 96-98, 400020 Mint Road, Mumbai-400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acnpn 2800 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.6671/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Prakash B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6672/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09) िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Cc-32, Mumbai- Vs. Pravin B. Bandarkar, Room 400020 No.1, Baburao Chawl, Hanuman Takadi, Bhandup (W), Mumbai- 400078 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahlpb 1306 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri Vijay Mehta राज"व क" क" ओर क" क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri C.W.Angolkar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/04/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2016

Section 143(3)

Court in the case of ‘Goetze (India) Limited v. CIT’ (2006) 157 Taxman 1, relating to the restriction of making the claim through a revised return was limited to the powers of the Assessing Authority and the said judgment does not impinge on the power or negate the powers

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Pragathi Group, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the department is dismissed

ITA 1135/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri V. Shridar, CA

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Girish Talwalkar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5633/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Subhash S. ShettyFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Bepari

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

heard and record perused. In this case penalty has been imposed with respect to remuneration from the firm, offered by the assessee in the revised return filed u/s.139(5) of the I.T.Act. 3. Facts in brief are that assessee is an individual having a proprietary business and is also partner ... Rs.14,81,658/- in his Return of Income which was filed on 30/09/2010 on due date of Filing of Return. Assessee has thereafter filed Revised Return of Income u/ s 139(5) on 15. 03.2012 including the Remuneration from said firm. The Assessing Officer has held that the Assessee

Sumer Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

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

ITA 844/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

action and such surrender fell within the immunity of Explanation 5 of section 271(1)(c) although amount of surrendered income was disclosed in revised return. 1.27 In view of the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S.D.V. Chandru 266 ITR 175, decision

DCIT 36, Mumbai vs. Sumer5 Corporation, Mumbai

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

ITA 3608/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

I.T.O WD - 35(1), Kolkata. vs. M/S Plastic Moulders International., Assam

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

ITA 333/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCA, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kr Kureel, JCIT, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 80I

without there being valid permissions and for not appreciating the fact how the assessee is eligible to claim deduction u/sec 80IE without there being revised return as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 284 ITR 323(SC), thus, with consent of parties, all grounds ... entertain a point of law for the first time and the AO has no power to entertain a fresh claim otherwise than by a revised return. The fact remains undisputed that the assessee did not file revised return to rectify the mistake as committed by it claiming deduction U/Sec 80IC

D.C.I.T Cir - 11, Kolkata vs. M/S Epcos India Pvt Ltd, North 24 Parganas

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 1161/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

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

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148

assessee is a company and is engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacturing and selling of soft ferrite components. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 on 3rd October, 2007 declaring a total taxable Income at nil. In the aforesaid return

Homecare Retail Marts P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 6484/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & C.N. Prasad, Jm Homecare Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner New Era Mills Compound, Of Income Tax-6(3), Mogul Lane, Matunga (West), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 016. Mumbai-400 020. Pan: Aabch 5538A Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

Homecare Retail Marts Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT declaring loss of Rs.13,87,46,874/- which was revised to Rs.14,20,95,245/- by filing revised return on 24.01.12. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 20.12.2012 determining the loss at Rs.13,77,94,205/- and while completing the assessment

Valuable Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 5981/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anu Krishna Aggarwal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(X)Section 43BSection 44ASection 8O

however, the CIT(A) disposed of the same by noticing that such claim was not raised before the Assessing Officer by way of any revised return but (Assessment Year : 2010-11) only through a written communication during the assessment proceedings. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) was guided by the ratio laid

Safset Forwarders P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5222/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5222/Mum/2013 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Safset Forwarders Pvt Ltd, बनधम/ Income Tax Officer 3(3)(2), Fgp Centre, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Commercial Union House, M K Road, 9, Wallace St. Fort, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400001

Section 111ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 264

pertinent to note here that the legislation has specifically provided the provisions of revised return by which any inadvertent mistake can be revised, however of!. this pretext also, the appellant's fails in its duty. Even it is also an admitted fact by the appellant that while filing revised return

Dharam Pal Jain L/H Ajay Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and as the appeal of the assessee has been disposed off by this order the stay petition No

ITA 1284/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishis.A.No.175/Del/2016 Dharam Pal Jain Ito, L/H Ajay Jain, Ward-35(5), (Old W-20(2), Vs. 189/8, Punja Sharif, Prem Gali, New Delhi Kashmere Gate, New Delhi Pan:Aaepj6163F (Appellant) (Respondent) Dharam Pal Jain Ito, L/H Ajay Jain, Ward-35(5), (Old W-20(2), Vs. 189/8, Punja Sharif, Prem Gali, New Delhi Kashmere Gate, New Delhi Pan:Aaepj6163F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Repudamen Thakur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravinder Mani, Sr. DR

Section 116Section 119Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

Article 141 & 227 of the Constitution and therefore, void ab-initio. 2) That CIT(A) erred in confirming the non-consideration of Revised Return u/s. 139(5) by Assessing Officer and failed to appreciate that: a) the reply from CPC, Bangalore wrongly used the term "SENT", while as per screen ... entry of cash deposit in the bank unless such entry had no nexus with the gross receipts; e) in failing to consider that the revised return substitute the original return from the date of filing the original return for the purpose of assessment; f) in not understanding the basic principle

M/S. Global Heritage Venture Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3197/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavai.T.A. No. 3197/Del/2013 Ay: 2009-10 Global Heritage Venture Ltd., Vs Dcit, (Formerly Known As M/S Krishna Central Circle-12, Buildwell & Developers Pvt. Ltd.), Ara Centre, 12, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-Iv, Jhandewalan Extension, Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aacck9842K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Sudesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri A.K. Saroha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.06.2016

For Appellant: Mr. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153C

crore has been shown in the hands of Sh. Rakesh Kumar Garg towards the construction of the hotel of the assessee company. In the revised return filed on I.T.A. No. 3197/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10 26/10/2010, the assessee has shown surrendered income of Rs. 2,93,87,834/- which includes

Dilip Kumar Sarawgi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3304/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Om Shree International, Asstt. Comm. Of Income Tax, 115, New India Industrial Range 20(2), Estate, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Off Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai - 400020 Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 057 Pan: Aaafo 3000A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Office Of The Acit-20(2), M/S. Om Shree International, 612, Piramal Chambers, Off Mahakali Caves Road, Lalbaug, 115, New India Industrial Vs. Mumbai - 400012 Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 59 Pan: Aaafo 3000A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.R. & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, D.R

Section 194CSection 40Section 69C

International “I) The learned CIT(A) has erred on facts and in the circumstances of the case in directing the AO to accept the revised return and deleting the addition made on account of excess stock, ignoring the fact that the revised return was rejected due to failure ... assessee to substantiate downward revision of the closing stock in the revised return and not the validity of return. II) The learned CIT(A) on facts and circumstances of the case has failed to appreciate that the AO in his assessment order has clearly brought out factual errors and inconsistencies

Addl.C.I.T. 20(2), Mumbai vs. Om Shree International, Mumbai

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

ITA 4575/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, A.R. & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, D.R

Section 194CSection 40Section 69C

M/S. Sivanandha Mills Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2106/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Section 143Section 143(1)

involved in the broking of the transfer of land with Alliance Mall. The Assessing Officer further stated that most of the persons have filed revised return or accounted receipt in the next year as they were following cash method of accounting. The Assessing Officer obtained clarification from M/s Alliance Mall ... commission payments were involved in the brokering of the transfer with Alliance Mall Developers Co. P. Ltd. (purchaser). Most of the persons have filed revised return or accounted the receipts in the next year as they were following cash method of accounting. Further, the contention

Sivanandha Mills Limited, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, ITA No.2106/Mds/13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1216/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Section 143Section 143(1)

Marvell India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajith Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Husain, CIT(LTU)

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144C

erred in assessing the total income of the appellant for the relevant AY: at INR 7,61,21,130/- as against revised returned income of INR 3,31,46,375/-. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the AO being

Late Shri Ajit S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3269/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2007-08 Late Ajit S. Mehta Through Ito-25(3)(3), L/H Smt. Smita Ajit Mehta, Mumbai बनाम/ 402, Raj Vaibhav Building Vs. No.1, Mahaveer Nagar, Dhankuar Wadi, Kandiwali(W) Mumbai-400067 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Adspa2166J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Kumar Biyani Smt. N.V. Nadkarni-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 16/06/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: 2 Late Ajit S. Mehta Through L/H Smt. Smita Ajit Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80C

return of income has been filed on 1st October, 2007 at a total income at Rs. NiI and subsequently the assessee filed a revised return of income on 22-09-2008. Assessment u/s.143(3) was completed on 11th December, 2009. Subsequently notice u/s.148 was issued on 27th March

The Commissioner of Income Tax- V vs. Dr. M.Venkataramana

ITTA/259/2010HC Telangana16 Jun 2016

Bench: The Commissioner Of Income Tax. After Considering The Plus & Minus Points, The Appeal Was Finalised, Whereby Some Points Were

For Appellant: M/S. APOLLO TYRES LTD KOCHIFor Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 268A

engaged in the manufacture and sale of automotive tyres, tubes, etc. Return was filed by the company on 28.11.1996, which was followed by a revised return. Finally, the assessment was completed in terms of Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer as per order dated

DCIT Cir 6(1), Mumbai vs. Borosil Glass Works Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6583/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6583/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Borosil Glass Works Ltd, 4Th Floor, Khanna Const. House- Tax Circle 6(1) R No.506, Vs. 44 Dr R G Thandani Marg, 5Th Floor, Ayakar Bhavan, Worli, M K Road, Mumbai-400018 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaacb5484G अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shrimati Bharti Singh प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 25.5.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.6.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.8.2014 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called As The Cit(A) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Only Issue Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal Relates To Wrongful Adjudication Of Levy Of Interest Of Rs.71,64,280/- U/S 234C Dehors The Rules, Which Was Not 2 6583/Mum/2013

Section 115Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234CSection 246

declaring gross total income at Rs.6,96,12,47,101/- which was revised on 30.1.2012 at Rs.6,87,70,67,982/-. The said revised return was filed to correct the amount of Short Term Capital Loss which was wrongly calculated in the original return of income. The revised return ... para 3.1 of the appellate order by observing and holding as under: “3.1 In appeal it is submitted as under: The appellant filed its revised return of income on 30.03.2013 declaring gross total income of Rs.687,70,67,985/- under normal provisions and Rs.800,42,67,895/ under the book