“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

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2884/MUM/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. C.NareshFor Respondent: Shri. N.P.Singh

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 250Section 250(6)

Activities, filed its return of income declaring the total income of Rs. 27,54,71,550/-in the month of November, 2000. Revised return was filed on 28/03/2002 computing the total income at Rs. (-) 14, 96, 77,930/- The return was selected for scrutiny. Assessment order

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 2883/MUM/2013[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

For Appellant: Shri. C.NareshFor Respondent: Shri. N.P.Singh

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 244ASection 250Section 250(6)

Addl.CIT., RG.-11(1), Mumbai vs. Viacom 18 Media P.Ltd., (Formerly Known As Mtv Networks India P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 265/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Ramit Kochar, Am Assessment Year : 2008-09 Viacom 18 Media P Ltd. The Addl. Cit Rg. 11(1) Zion Bisworld Mumbai Vs. Subhash Road-A Near Garware Office Vile Parle (E) Mumbai- 400 057 Pan Aaacm9164E (Appellant) Respondent) Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Addl. Cit Rg. 11(1) Viacom 18 Media P Ltd. Mumbai Mumbai- 400 057 Vs. Pan Aaacm9164E (Appellant) Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V IraniFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikarau

Section 139(5)Section 32(1)(ii)

with the aforesaid reasoning of the AO also held that assessee’s claim cannot also be allowed as it is not made through a revised return u/s. 139(5). 4. The learned counsel for the assessee taking us through the different clauses of the agreement submitted before us that ... observation of the CIT(A) that assessee’s claim cannot be allowed as such claim was not made through the revised return, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Sharesholders

Sankalp Consumer Product P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1619/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejai.T.A. No.1619/M/2013 (Assessment Year: 2009-2010) फनाभ/ M/S. Sankalp Consumer Addl. Cit, Range-2(3), Product Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. Vs. Rupam Building, 5 Th Floor, 239, P D’Mello Road, Opp. Gpo, Fort, Mumbai-400001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaccs2368A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Ms. Toral Shah प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Love Kumar, Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Toral ShahFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar, DR

Section 14A

raised two grounds. The first grievance of the assessee is that the CIT (A) erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has considered the revised return of income filed by the assessee on 16.9.2010. In this regard, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee filed its return of income ... originally on 29.9.2009 disallowing the interest of Rs., 35,50,079/-. Subsequently, revised return was filed on 16.9.2010, wherein the interest was disallowed at Rs. 1,45,352/-. Ld Counsel for the assessee also submitted that in the assessment, the Assessing Officer has not considered the revised return of income

Viacom 18 Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 11(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7336/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V IraniFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikarau

Section 139(5)Section 32(1)(ii)

Archway Investment Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1977/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Ms. Lata Sunder-DR

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

assessee company,engaged in the business of investment,filed its return of income on 28. 10.05,declaring total income of Rs.15.87lakhs. Later on, a revised return was filed on 27.12.2005 for loss of Rs.2.12 lakhs. The AO completed the assessment

Tata Communications Ltd (Formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3417/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 244ASection 250

year under consideration assessee had filed its return of income on 31.10.01 declaring total income of Rs.1972,05,06,220/-. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 31.03.03 declaring total income of Rs.1869,68,46,000/-. Assessment in case of the assessee was completed under section

ACIT 1(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Communications Ltd ( Foprmerly Kknown As Videsh Sanchar Nigam, Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3326/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 244ASection 250

DCIT 15(3), Mumbai vs. Kamdhenu Builders and Developers, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7010/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.7010/Mum/2010 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit 15(3) Vs. Kamdhenu Builders & Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Developers Tardeo Road, 20 Shanti Centre, Sector 17, Mumbai Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 705 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aahfk 0461 E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (Dr) ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee By : (I) Shri Sunil Pathak (Ar) (Ii)Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi(Ar) सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2015 घोषणा की तायीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C.Sharma (A.M): This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), For The Assessment Year 2007-08, In The Matter U/S.143(3)(Ii) Of The I.T. Act, Wherein The Following Three Grounds Taken Of The Assessee. (I) “On The Facts & Circumstances Of Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Assessee Is Entitled To Deduction U/S 80Ib (10) Of Rs.1,94,12,489/- Inspite Of The Fact That The Claim For Deduction Was Not Made In The Original Return & Was Only Made In The Return Filed, For A.Y. 2007-08, On 31.08.2009, Which Is Not A Valid Return In The Eye Of Law & Also Cannot Be Treated As „Revised Return‟ U/S. 139(5).” (Ii) “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Allowing The Deduction U/S 80Ib (10) Of Rs.1,94,12,489/-, As The Same Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Section 80A(5), Effective From 01.04.2003, Which Does Not Permit Allowance Of Deduction Unless The Claim For Deduction Is Made In The Return Of Income.”

For Appellant: (i) Shri Sunil Pathak (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind (DR)

Section 10Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 80A(5)Section 80I

filed, for A.Y. 2007-08, on 31.08.2009, which is not a valid return in the eye of law and also cannot be treated as „revised return‟ u/s. 139(5).” (ii) “On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction ... erred in allowing the deduction u/s 80IB(10) as the same only means that deduction can be claimed just by filling revised return u/s 139(5) has already elapsed, in the course of assessment proceedings, which is not at all acceptable in the light of amended provisions of section

A.C.I.T. 4(2), Mumbai vs. Vimla Suresh Jajoo, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 4476/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R

Section 143(3)

Order u/s.143(3) dated 27.2.2004, the assessee was held to be an investor in shares and long term capital gain declared as per revised return without (indexation) and short term capital loss on sale of shares as declared was assessed on such as per Para 26 of the order

A.C.I.T. 4(2), Mumbai vs. Suresh K. Jajoo, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 4475/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R

Section 143(3)

Suresh K Jajoo, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 4366/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R

Section 143(3)

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Suresh K Jajoo, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5303/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R

Section 143(3)

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Vimla S. Jajoo, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5302/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R

Section 143(3)

ACIT Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Suresh K Jajoo, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 3053/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R

Section 143(3)

ACIT 15(2), Mumbai vs. Skyway Construciton Co.), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7735/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri N.K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2007-08 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Skyway Construction Co., Income-Tax 15(2), 403, Matharu House, Matru Mandir, Subhash Road, Vs. Room No.113, Near Garware House, Tardeo, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai - 400008 Mumbai – 400 057 Pan: Aaafs 1200N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Pradip N. Kapasi, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.01.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Pradip N. Kapasi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, D.R

Section 133Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases. However, since the assessee was under constant pressure from the AO, hence the assessee to buy the peace of mind filed revised return of income wherein the assessee declared the additional income. Neither the assessee had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income nor had concealed the income ... bogus purchases. No concealed income was found neither during the survey nor during the assessment proceedings. The income offered by the assessee in the revised return was voluntary and as such it is not the case of concealment of income. The Ld. CIT(A), relying upon the various case laws

DCIT 4(2), Mumbai vs. Vimla S. Jajoo, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 2469/MUM/2009[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R

Section 143(3)

ACIT Cir-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Suresh K. Jajoo, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5442/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R

Section 143(3)

ACIT Cir-4(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vimla S. Jajoo, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed and the appeal of the assessee i

ITA 5441/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Dr. Santosh Mankoskar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Madhur Agarwal, D.R

Section 143(3)

Nec Hcl System Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result we confirm the finding the of the CIT (A) regarding deletion of disallowance u/s 40a (i) of The Income tax Act of Rs

ITA 5497/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, CIT (DR)

Section 10ASection 10A(8)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

Rs.l9,47,610/- under section 10A of the Act and setting off of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a revised return of income on September 26, 2009 followed by paper filing of acknowledgement on October 6,2009. As per the revised return of income