“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

Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result we allow the application of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules

ITA 6387/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr.D.R

Section 10Section 10ASection 80

assessee had originally claimed deduction under section 80 HHE of the Act in its return of income and subsequently it filed a revised return of income and claimed deduction under section 10A of the Act. The A.O. held that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction

Infrasoft Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result we allow the application of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules

ITA 6386/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr.D.R

Section 10Section 10ASection 80

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

In the result ground, no

ITA 6282/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amendra Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 92C

made full disclosures in respect of its claims and did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of its income. I. Non processing of the revised return of Income 9 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in not processing the revised return

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

In the result ground, no

ITA 5882/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amendra Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 92C

D.C.I.T CC - V, Kolkata vs. Krishna Trade & Commerce Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1083/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

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

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

being accounted for. All these were pointed out to the assessee. The assessee came forward with offer of additional income. Assessee filed a revised return on 31-3-1989 declaring a total income for this year at Rs. 3,74,226 as against the earlier amount ... been estimated by the search party in the office of the appellant and its sister concerns. On the basis of these calculations, revised returns were filed by the appellant for all the years under appeal. The income as per revised returns were also accepted in toto. In the course

M/S. the Supreme Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cen Cir-29, Mumbai

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

ITA 7524/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7524/Mum/2007 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2004-2005) The Supreme Industries Limited, Vs. The Acit, Cc-29, 612, Raheja Chambers, 213, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 1344 F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Alok Johri सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2016 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/04/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2004-2005. 2. First Grievance Of The Assessee Relates To Taxing Of Capital Gains Amounting To Rs.10,30,06,590/- U/S.50B R.W.S.2(42C) Arising On The Transfer Of The Bopp Films Undertaking To Xpro India Ltd. (Xil). 3. Rival Contentions Have Been Heard & Record Perused. This Ground Relates To Taxation Of Capital Gains Amounting To Rs.10,30,06,590/- U/S.50B Read With Section 2(42C) Of The I.T. Act. The Facts In Brief Relating To This Addition Are That During The Previous Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Appeal, The Assessee Entered Into A Business Transfer Agreement (Bta) With Xpro India Ltd (Xil) For Sale Of Its Bopp Films Undertaking At Pithampur, Madhya Pradesh As A Going-Concern For A Total

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Alok Johri

Section 2Section 50B

respect of the said transfer in accordance with the provisions of section 50B of the IT. Act. However, subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return withdrawing the aforesaid income by way of short term capital gains on the ground that the impugned transfer of the BOPP Films undertaking

M/S. Strides Arcolab Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. ITO - 10(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 641/MUM/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand

Section 115JSection 35

normal provisions and paid tax of ` 5,44,980 under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, assessee on 31st March 2005, filed a revised return of income declaring loss of ` 5,25,97,009, under the normal provisions and computed tax of ` 1,09,148, on the book profit declared

Brijbasi Art Press Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5939/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 5939/Del./2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Satyam Seth, Adv. & A.J.Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. K.K.Jaiswal, DR

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

Accordingly the assessee claimed depreciation on the value reduced by Rs. 46,00,000/-. It was further submitted that the time to file the revised return of income had already expired but the assessee furnished full particulars in respect of the sale of factory in its return of income, Profit

M/S Manipal Technologies Limited, Manipal vs. Addl..C.I.T., Udupi

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

ITA 633/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Manipal Technologies Ltd., (Formerly Known As Manipal Press Ltd.) Udayavani Building, Manipal-576104. … Appellant Pan: Aabcm9516H Vs.

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT(DR)

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 15A

income on 30-9-2010 declaring loss of Rs.13,52,48,391/- and book profits u/s 115JB of Rs.5,24,71,734/-. Subsequently, revised return was filed on 30-10-2010 declaring the same quantum of loss as well as book profit. During the assessment proceedings

DCIT, Chennai vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1431/CHNY/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Milind S. Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

financing. For the AY 2001--02, filed its original return of income on 30.10.2001 declaring income of "15,26,12,754/- and filed revised return of income on 29.9.03 and 24.12.03 declaring income of "14,68,46,439. The revised return filed on 24.12.03 was processed u/s.143 ... part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The revised return was filed by the assessee on 24.12.2003. Under Sec. 139(5), any person having furnished a return under sub-section

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1180/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Milind S. Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Madhukar Bhusari, CIT

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Mitsui Prime Advanced Composites India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 550/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri C.M. Garg, Jm Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Kanchan Kaushal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

background of the facts as are instantly prevailing. It is not a case where the assessee either surrendered any income or filed a revised return offering the income. Nor did the assessee come forward to surrender the amount of Rs.3.31 crore and odd. On the contrary, it is a case

Gyanendra Bansal vs. UOI & Ors

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

ITA/138/2004HC Delhi28 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

each Assessee disclosed Rs.10,00,000 as sale price of the plot and declared capital gains of Rs.2,30,613. In the subsequent revised return the Assessees deleted the amount shown as capital gains. A note was furnished stating "Return has been revised due to the reason that the amount ... received by virtue of decree passed by Supreme Court, was wrongly treated as Capital Gain Income." 7. The revised returns were picked up for scrutiny. In the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer („AO‟) framed the following questions for consideration: (i) Whether the amount of Rs.10

Girish Bansal vs. UOI & Ors

The appeals are allowed but in the circumstances with order as to costs

ITA/136/2004HC Delhi28 Apr 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A

Free India Assurance Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5934/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosaindcit, Circle - 6(2) M/S. Free India Assurance Room No. 563, 5Th Floor Services Ltd. Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 209, Prime Plaza, J.V. Compound Vs. Mumbai 400020 B.M. Road, Elephistone (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aaacf3879K Appellant Respondent M/S. Free India Assurance Acit, Circle - 6(2) Services Ltd. 5Th Floor, Àayakar Bhavan 209, Prime Plaza, J.V. Compound Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 B.M. Road, Elephistone (W) Mumbai 400013 Pan - Aaacf3879K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 249(2)Section 73

declaring total income of `1,24,11,742/- and claimed loss of `5,68,80,336/- from speculation business to be carried forward. The revised return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and the case was subsequently taken

DCIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai vs. Free India Assurance Services Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 5588/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 249(2)Section 73

Bhavanji S. Bhadra, Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. (OSD-I) Central RG.7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar

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

case the disclosure by the assessee has come only after discovery of particulars of income during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee filed revised return only after the assessee had admitted of the bogus gifts in the disclosure u/s. 132(4). Hence the fact is that the addition ... based on independent detection of bogus gifts during the search and seizure operation and only subsequently the revised return of income was filed by the assessee. The case of Biland Ram Hargan Dass Vs CIT 171 ITR 390, the Allahabhad High Court has held that any admission or disclosure coming

M/S. B.K. Concast Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 800/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, DR

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

declared at Rs.10,70,72,206/- in the original return based on clerical error was subsequently revised at Rs.10,87,22,146/- by filing revised return voluntarily and suo moto. On facts and in law it was not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income warranting application

Mrs. Vinita Pahwa, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6134/DEL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.R. Sonbhadra, Senior DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 36

original return is filed - Assessing authority has no power to entertain a claim made by assessee after filing original return otherwise than by filing revised return." Assessment is, therefore, to be computed on the basis of original computation of income. In view of the submission of the assessee offering provision

Prabhat Kumar Sahu, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5835/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. Lalit Kumaray: 2010-11 Sh. Prabhat Kumar Sahu Vs. Dy.Cit, Circle 37(1) D 247, Second Floor Room No.2005 Defence Colony 20Th Floor, Block E-2 New Delhi 110 024 Aayakar Bhavan Pan: Abvps 4940 B Civic Centre New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. T.R.Talwar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.C.Danjay, Sr.D.R

Section 251(1)(a)Section 36(1)(iii)

declared this property as an asset of his profession. As 50% of this property was only used for profession, the assessee filed a revised return restricting the depreciation that was originally claimed to 50% of such claim. As far as the claim of interest taken on loan for acquisition