“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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. Labham Finance Limited

ITTA/204/2010HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

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

For Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 143(3)

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 Annexure

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mahajan Industries P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6295/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Bhoot, CIT- DRFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. Adv

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

return of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 was filed on 30.09.2009 declaring an income of Rs.90,19,86,967/-. The assessee has filed revised return on 30.03.2011 declaring income of Rs.77,28,37,094/-. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected ... case, there is no dispute on this fact about revision of the return of income and the AO has taken into cognizance the revised return while passing his order and appellant has disputed the facts only on the merits of the issue. 3.2 Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before

Asst.C.I.T., Mangalore vs. M/S Shankar Vittal Motor Co. Ltd., Mangalore

ITA 35/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Smt Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)

transport operators filed return of income declaring a loss of Rs.58,98,255/- for the assessment year 2010-11. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return on 20-12-2012 declaring total income at Rs.4,24,97,188/- which includes addition income of Rs.4,83,95,449/- on account of capital ... assessment was re-opened u/s 147 of the IT Act, 1961. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee has filed one more revised return declaring a long term capital loss of Rs.2,01,04,068/- based on the guidance value of the land and the assessment was completed

ITO vs. Sri. Kamlesh Shanthilal Oswal Jain

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

ITA 883/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri L.Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Praveena, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

fire actually taken place in the premises which belonged to the assessee. The assessee has also filed the 10 ITA No.883 (B)/2013 revised return of VAT under VAT no.115 therefore; the appeal of the revenue is liable to be dismissed. We have considered the facts and circumstances

The Karnataka State Co-Op Apex Bank Ltd vs. JCIT

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 713/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)

assessment year 2008- 09 on 30-09-2008, declaring total income of Rs.26,83,47,360/- and on 10-03-2010 it filed revised return of income declaring a total income of Rs.27,60,63,810/- The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed u/s143

ITO (E) Trust Ward-IV vs. Maharaji Education Trust

In the result this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05 Ay: 2005-06 Ay: 2006-07 Ay: 2007-08 Ito (E), Trust Ward Iv Vs. Maharaji Education Trust New Delhi No.1, Santosh Nagar Pratap Vihar Ghaziabad 201 009 A.Y. : ------ Maharaji Educational Trust Vs. Dit(E), N.Delhi Ghaziabad

For Appellant: Sh. R.S.Singhvi, C.A. and Sh.V.K.Sabharwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT, D.R

Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 80G

discrepancies detected during the course of survey on 10.8.2006 that the assessee has subsequently revised the original return filed on 31.10.2005 by filing a revised return on 31.3.2007 and enhanced the surplus (excess of income over expenditure) from Rs.4,56,95,467/- declared in the original return to Rs.6 ... revised return. Thus excess surplus amounting to Rs.1,89,69,795/- was declared.” 6.1. The A.O. in this A.Y. rejected the claim for exemption u/s 11 of the Act by observing as follows. “In the instant case, during certain enquiries, it came into notice, that the assessee Institution is taking

Maharaji Educational Trust vs. DIT(E)

In the result this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 311/DEL/2008[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2016AY 2008-2009

For Appellant: Sh. R.S.Singhvi, C.A. and Sh.V.K.Sabharwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT, D.R

Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 80G

Pukhraj H Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 6219/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6219/M/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Pukhraj H. Mehta Asst. Comm. Of Income Tax बनाम/ 106-A, Shyam Kamal, 21(1) Vs. Tejpal Road, Mumbai Vile Parle (East), Mumbai - 400057 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaopm0512F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul H. HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Shiddaramappa K. Navar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

figure the detail in the return however 4 Assessment Year: 2009-10 after the issuance of notice the assessee submitted the revised return and disclosed the said transaction by showing the income to the tune of Rs.1,02,59,826/- as against returned income of Rs.94,67,826/-. Assessee also ... Rs.43,00,000/- however, short term capital gain which the assessee has been received has not been reflected. Subsequently the assessee filed the revised return voluntarily offering the tax to the tune of Rs.7,92,000/-. The authority did not highlight the fact about non furnishing of the details

A.R. Builders, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3223/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Anil SatheFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Goel

Section 143Section 254(1)Section 56

filed the present appeal. 2.Assessee-an individual, filed its return of income on 6/05/2009, declaring total income at Rs.1,85,160/-.Later on a revised return was filed on 12/05/209, showing income at Rs.2,84, 046/-.On 29/07/2009,one more return was filed declaring income at Rs.3,11720/-. The Assessing

ITO 20(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Pramukh Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2244/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2244/M/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Income Tax Officer 20(2)(3) M/S. Pramukh Enterprises बनाम/ Piramal Chamber, 16/2, Matru Mandir, Jawahar Vs. Room No. 411, 4Th Floor, Nagar No.2, Goregaon Lalbaug, Parel, (West) Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai - 400062 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagpf02472H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravikiran

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69ASection 80I

fulfil the condition thereof. Accordingly the claim for this deduction (which the appellant had withdrawn by filing a revised return dated 13.02.2006 and once again thereafter vide a subsequent revised return dated 31.03.2007) was disallowed. While completing the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has also

Asst CIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai vs. Uniphos Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 925/MUM/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainacit, Central Circle-38 M/S. Uniphos Enterprises Ltd. (Formerly United Phosphorous Ltd.) Room No. 32(1), Gr. Floor Vs. Uniphos Hosue, 11Th Road Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road C.D. Marg, Khar (W), Mumbai Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aaacu3440P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mukundraj ChateFor Respondent: Ms. Saisudha Multani

Section 11Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 2Section 234BSection 244A

provisions and Book Profit of `11,95,97,648/- under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). Subsequently, a revised return was filed wherein income of `7,83,83,421/- was declared under normal provisions of the Act. The case was taken for scrutiny

Ajay Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT 26(2), Mumbai

ITA 5255/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A.V. KamatFor Respondent: Shri Murli

Section 139Section 143Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

filing inaccurate particulars of the income. 2.Assessee,an individual,filed his return of income on 31/07/2010,showing total income of Rs. 75.64 lakhs.Thereafter, a revised return was filed on 23/09/2011,declaring income at Rs.62.83 lakhs after claiming deduction u/s. 54 of the Act.In the order passed u/s.143 ... invested in new house property on 15/01/2011 i.e. within two years from the sale of original house property and had filed the revised return by claiming exemption as per the provisions of the Act,that all the facts and figures had been disclosed in the return of income, that there

Goodricke Group Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1372/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2016AY 2009-2010

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

income for the year under consideration was originally filed by it on 30.09.2009 declaring total income of Rs.11,07,27,313/-. Thereafter a revised return was filed by the assessee on 17.12.2009 declaring total income of Rs.13,17,48,375/-. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) vide

The DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Icici Bank Ltd ( Erstwhile Scici Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3409/MUM/2008[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 1996-1997

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Dcit, Cir.3(1), Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai 400 020 ... Appellant

For Appellant: Shri B.C.S NaikFor Respondent: Shri Aarti Vissanji

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80M

declared originally on 30/11/1996, which was subsequently revised during the assessment proceedings to Rs.70,20,27,400/-. The difference between the assessed and the revised returned income, which is relevant for the present purpose is on account of depreciation on leased assets and partial denial of deduction under section

Siem Offshore Crewing As, Dehradun vs. ACIT, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun

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

ITA 4542/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: S/Shri Amit Arora, CA, Amit Bhalla, CA & Suraj Nangia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anand Kumar Kadia, CIT DR

Section 234BSection 44BSection 9Section 9(1)(vii)

Income Tax Act, 1961 I.T.A. No. 4542/Del/2013 Assessment Year 2008-09 on 30.09.2008 at an income of Rs. 80,02,970/-. A revised return of income was filed on 24.12.2009. During the year under consideration, the assessee had shown gross revenues of Rs. 8,00,29,650/- on account

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Digital Radio (Del) Broadcasting Ltd., New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals filed by revenue are dismissed

ITA 4199/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Digital Radio (Del) Broadcasting Ltd. , Circle-10(1), Vs. 401, Sakha House, 18/17, Wea, New Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan:Aabcr7864B (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Digital Radio (Mum) Broadcasting Ltd. , Circle-10(1), Vs. 401, Sakha House, 18/17, Wea, New Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Digital Radio (Kol) Broadcasting Ltd. , Circle-10(1), Vs. 401, Sakha House, 18/17, Wea, New Delhi Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Representation On Record Appellant By Shri Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Respondent Assessee By Shri Sanjeev Sapra, Ca

Section 27(1)(c)Section 271Section 35A

territory of Kolkata, Delhi & Mumbai. All these assessee filed there return of income which were subsequently revised and in revised return claim u/s 35ABB of the Act was made on account of license fees paid by the assessee for respective territories. These companies were awarded license from the Ministry ... During the year, the appellant had claimed deduction u/s 35ABB of Rs.12,65,82,440/- under the head 'license fee' in the revised return of income filed with the Assessing Officer as revenue expenditure and also shown interest income as business income instead of income from other sources. During

Smt. Ishrat Begum, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

The appeal is allowed

ITA 926/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ishrat Begum, Vs. Ito, C/O. Sh. V.K. Goel, Adv. Ward 1(3), 282-Boundary Road, Civil Lines, Meerut. Meerut. (Pan: Airpb8927G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V.K. Goel, Adv. Department By: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18 .12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 10 :03.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order Whereby The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Upheld The Penalty Of Rs.3,12,477 Levied Under Sec. 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard & Considered The Arguments Advanced By The Parties In View Of Orders Of The Authorities Below, Material Available On Record & The Decisions Relied Upon. 4. The Relevant Facts Assessee That During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessee Was Asked To Explain The Source Of Deposit Of Rs.10,80,303 In Her Bank Account. The Assessee Tried To Explain By Stating

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

year may be treated as revised and accordingly income of the assessee shown at Rs.6,63,750 be accepted. The Assessing Officer accepted the revised return and assessed the total income at Rs.6,63,750 as offered by the assessee. Since the assessee herself had revised its return of income ... above submissions, we find that it is an undisputed fact that the assessment has been framed in the present case on the basis of revised return of income and the income declared therein has been accepted 5 by the Assessing Officer, hence, it cannot be said that there was concealment

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bussan Auto Finance India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2842/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkeyay: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. SK Jain, D.RFor Respondent: Sh. C.J.S.Nanda, C.A

Section 139(5)

filed its return of income for the relevant A.Y. on 30.9.2008 declaring income of Rs.2,84,56,074/-. Subsequently, the assessee company filed revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act on 12.8.2009 and declared a loss of Rs.2,68,67,610/- in the computation of its total

Western India Shipyard Ltd., Goa vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2551/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri V.V. Kale CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Paramita M Biswas CIT(DR)

sundry creditors Rs. 3359061/- are not justified and are not in line with facts of thecase and tax provisions”. 14. The assessee had filed revised return of income on 15.2.2007 declaring total loss of Rs. 95,60,975/-. The assessment was completed at a total income

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vivek Setia, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Stands dismissed

ITA 4105/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Sh. Vivek Setia, Circle-46(1), New Delhi D-32, Anand Niketan, Room No. 305, Civic Centre, New Delhi D-Block, 3Rd Floor, New Delhi (Pan:Aaaps1430Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Virmani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

whereas the fact that the assessee had neither claimed STCL of Rs. 10,71,126/- in his original return nor he had filed the revised return, the assessee had just filed the revised computation at the time of assessment proceedings; 2 2. Allowing the STCL ... rightly disallowed the STCL in the absence of revised return in view of judicial judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz (India) vs. CIT (2006). The appellant craves the right to alter, amend, add or substitute the grounds of appeal.” 2. On going through the grounds