“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

Tapas Dutta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1935/KOL/2014[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2016AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

individual, who filed his return of income for the year under consideration originally on 28.08.2002 declaring total income of Rs.54,750/-. Thereafter a revised return was filed by the assessee on 20.03.2003 declaring total income of Rs.96,050/-. Since the original return filed by the assessee on 28.08.2002 was beyond ... date, the revised return filed by the assessee subsequently on 20.03.2003 was held I.T.A. No. 1935/KOL./2014 Assessment year: 2001-2002 Page 2 of 3 to be invalid by the Assessing Officer and in order to regularize the same, a notice under section 148 was issued

Vishal Sushilkumar Goenka, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10

ITA 4967/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainvishal Sushilkumar Goenka, Plot No.6 F11/12, Wicel, Opp. Seepz, Midc, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 Pan: Aabpg 5548C ... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal

Section 143

claimed loss of Rs. 9,67,871/- under the head 'income from other sources'. It is undisputed that assessee had not filed any revised return. Therefore the action of the AO as correct in view of (original) return of income filed by the assessee for the reason that the impugned ... case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v/s CIT (284 ITR 323) that assessing authority cannot entertain any claim otherwise than by way of revised return. In the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., the Ld.CIT(A) had allowed the assessee's appeal/ claim but Hon'ble ITAT had allowed the appeal

M/S. Sbi Capital Markets Ltd vs. The Dy CIT RG-4(2)

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3789/MUM/2004[1994-1995]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 1994-1995

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3789/Mum/2004 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1994-95) Sbi Capital Markets Ltd. Dy. Cit, Range-4(2), बनाम/ 202, Maker Tower E, Mumbai Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs 7914 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Neil Phillip

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Neil Phillip

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 35(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80G

cell powered vehicles.” There is, accordingly, no basis to state of this disclosure being not true and full qua this claim. The assessee’s revised return (filed on 17/8/1995) clearly exhibits all the facts, i.e., long-term capital loss; short-term capital gain; and long-term capital gain (at correct ... Revenue states of the two being different, though falling under the same head of income, i.e., ‘Capital Gains’. The manner of claim per the revised return clearly brings out both, the relevant sources and the heads of income against which the set off could be exercised, bringing out the conscious

Sutapa Chatterjee, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 50(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2375/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

gone through facts and circumstances of the case. I find that the CIT(A) or the AO has not accepted the revised return. But the AO or the CIT(A) should have considered the plea of the assessee in respect to less receipt of commission after examining the documents

Asst CIT 20(2), Mumbai vs. Ramesh R. Shah, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine

ITA 5101/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. B.S.BistFor Respondent: Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 74Section 80

claim a loss of Rs. 1,82,27,039/- to be carried forward under section 74 of the Act. it was only in the revised return of income dated 28/03/2006 filed under section 139(5) that the assessee claimed the loss for shares from Phlox Pharma Ltd. of the aforesaid

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Srf Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3848/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Bernwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Satyen Sethi, Adv

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(2)

approval on 19.9.2008, the assessee was having no option to reduce the claim by revising the tax return because the last date for filing revised return u/s 139(5) lapsed on 31.3.2008. The ld. AR further contended that from the certificate of DSIR it is amply clear taht

Hewlett Packard Financial Services India Private vs. The State of Karnataka

STRP/412/2015HC Karnataka19 Feb 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 23(1)Section 39(1)Section 5(2)Section 65(1)

same be considered as voluntary disclosure in compliance with the provisions of the KVAT Act as the time 48 limit for filing a revised return as per Section 35(4) had expired. Based on the above submissions made by the appellant, a letter of endorsement was issued by the Assessing

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bharat Export, New Delhi

ITA 4747/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Acit, Vs Bharat Export, Circle 20(1), 293. Dhakka Johar, Room No. F-308, Dr. Mukharjee Nagar, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi.-110009 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaafb6979M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S.L. Anuragi Dr Respondent By: Shri C.S. Anand, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 18.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Anuragi DRFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Anand, Adv

Section 145(3)Section 54G

engaged in the manufacture and sale of stainless steel cutlery/utensils. The original return declaring nil income was filed on 30.09.2008 and a revised return declaring a total income of R.s 67,85,297/- was field on 5.1.2009. In this year, the assessee had disclosed Gross Profit @9.58% of the turnover

D.C.I.T.Cir - VIII, Kol, Kolkata vs. Shri Ram Chandra Agarwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as stated above

ITA 1700/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Chhaparia,FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. S.S Alam, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)

return of income. He also argued that the assessee has merely filed revised computation of his total income and did not bother to file revised return of income. Thus, the ld.AO was justified in imposing the penalty. The ld.DR in support of his arguments has relied on the following case ... response to this, the ld.AR argued that since the original return of income was filed belatedly, the assessee could not file any revised return of income and instead of it assessee filed a revised computation of total income before completion of assessment proceedings, wherein long term capital gain on sale

Menlo Worldwide Forwarding India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed and the Revenue’s appeal does not sustain

ITA 1755/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1755/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2003-04)

Section 13Section 271(1)(c)Section 272(1)(c)

come to the knowledge that there was an error in net profit for the A.Y 2003-04 immediately, the assessee filed revised return for A.Y 2003-04 which was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The AR pointed out page 215 of the paper book wherein the revised return ... filed and in Schedule 9, there was a clear mention that there was some error for which the revised return has been filed. The AR also submitted that auditor himself has admitted that there was an error and no authority whatsoever has stated that the revised return were false. Therefore

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Menlo Worldwide Forwarding India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are allowed and the Revenue’s appeal does not sustain

ITA 3052/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1755/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2003-04)

Section 13Section 271(1)(c)Section 272(1)(c)

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 vs. M/s. VBC Industries Limited

In the result, we do not find any

ITTA/559/2015HC Telangana16 Feb 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 10Section 260Section 260A

without appreciating the fact that the assessee had neither made the aforesaid claim in the return of income nor had filed the revised return of 14 income and therefore, the assessee cannot make a fresh claim without filing a revised return. It is also urged that the tribunal grossly erred

A.C.I.T Cir - 30, Kolkata vs. M/S Bells Advertising Syndicates, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 395/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

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

Section 194CSection 40

return of income for the year under consideration was originally filed by it on 01.11.2007 declaring total income of Rs.19,47,697/-. Thereafter a revised return was filed by the assessee on 01.11.2007 declaring total income of Rs.49,30,245/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. the Delhi State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 518/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri O.P. Kant, Am Ita No. 518/Del./2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. S.C.GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT, DR

Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

viia) @ 7.5% of the total NP. The AO has disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that filing time for revised return has expired uls 139(5) and the assessee was not entitled to make a fresh claim or deduction and the AO relied on the case