← All Phrases

“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
84
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
77
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
76
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

M/S Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA-374/2003HC Delhi23 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Mr Simran MehtaFor Respondent: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel for
Section 115Section 116Section 260ASection 32A(1)

cess and cess surcharge as unconstitutional during the pendency of the assessment proceedings – on 25th October, 1989 – the Assessee could have filed a revised return withdrawing its claim for deduction on account of the liability for payment of cess and cess surcharge. The AO reasoned that such liability ... cess and cess surcharge. The ITAT also concurred with the AO as well as the CIT(A) that the Assessee could have filed a revised return withdrawing its claim as the Assessee had not reflected the liability in its books. Insofar as the applicability of Section

M/S Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA - 374 / 2003HC Delhi23 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Mr Simran MehtaFor Respondent: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel for
Section 115Section 116Section 260ASection 32A(1)

cess and cess surcharge as unconstitutional during the pendency of the assessment proceedings – on 25th October, 1989 – the Assessee could have filed a revised return withdrawing its claim for deduction on account of the liability for payment of cess and cess surcharge. The AO reasoned that such liability ... cess and cess surcharge. The ITAT also concurred with the AO as well as the CIT(A) that the Assessee could have filed a revised return withdrawing its claim as the Assessee had not reflected the liability in its books. Insofar as the applicability of Section

M/S Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA/374/2003HC Delhi23 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Mr Simran MehtaFor Respondent: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel for
Section 115Section 116Section 260ASection 32A(1)

cess and cess surcharge as unconstitutional during the pendency of the assessment proceedings – on 25th October, 1989 – the Assessee could have filed a revised return withdrawing its claim for deduction on account of the liability for payment of cess and cess surcharge. The AO reasoned that such liability ... cess and cess surcharge. The ITAT also concurred with the AO as well as the CIT(A) that the Assessee could have filed a revised return withdrawing its claim as the Assessee had not reflected the liability in its books. Insofar as the applicability of Section

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Brijwasi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5589/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

premises. The assessee filed its return of income on 30.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs.23,52,655/-. The assessee revised its return and filed revised return of income on 05.12.2007 declaring total income of 2 ITA No.5589/Del./2013 Rs.25,07,480/-. The AO completed the assessment ... Rs.21,27,200/- relates to the Karigars. From the 5 ITA No.5589/Del./2013 assessment order it is noted that the appellant has filed a revised return wherein it had declared additional income of Rs.1,54,824/- as under: Income As per Seized Records Value of unaccounted Gold chain found

Shriram Epc Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2263/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2262 & 2263/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Shriram Epc Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 18/03, Rukmani Lakshmipathy V. Income Tax, Road, Company Circle Vi(2), 1St Floor, R.A. Building, Chennai - 600 034. Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan : Aafcs 1410 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act and consequent to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed the revised return in which the assessee has not claimed deduction in respect of the expenditure under Section 35D of the Act. The main contention

Shriram Epc Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2262/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2262 & 2263/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S Shriram Epc Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of 18/03, Rukmani Lakshmipathy V. Income Tax, Road, Company Circle Vi(2), 1St Floor, R.A. Building, Chennai - 600 034. Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan : Aafcs 1410 C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35D

issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act and consequent to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed the revised return in which the assessee has not claimed deduction in respect of the expenditure under Section 35D of the Act. The main contention

M/S. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4993/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: Shri G. N. Gupta, I.T.PFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT DR
Section 132Section 37Section 43B

same should be furnished to the assessee for its rebuttal or explanation. 15. Likewise, we find that the AO has relied on the revised returns filed by M/s. Balrampur Chinni Mills Ltd. who was also a member of the UPDA and has also made unaccounted payments. This company has surrendered

ITO, Mysore vs. M/S Lab Land Bio Tech Pvt. Ltd., Mysore

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 879/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2015AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri. S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, Addl. CIT
Section 10(1)Section 115Section 2Section 35

deemed to be agricultural income. However, AO did not accept this claim. According to him such claim ought to have been made through a revised return of income. Since assessee had not done so AO was of the opinion that assessee’s claim regarding agricultural nature of its receipts could ... computing any book profits also. 10. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that assessee having not preferred the claim of agricultural income through a revised return could not make such a claim before the AO or appellate authorities. 11. I have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. Basis

DCIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Vijay Bhagwandas Raheja, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed

ITA 2768/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Pawan Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2768/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year:2010-11) बनाम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vijay Bhagavandas Raheja Tax-Central Circle -29, Raheja Chambers, Vs. Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Linking Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Main Avenue, M K Road, Santacruze (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400054 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

committed a mistake at the time of filing of return and the same was rectified during the course of assessment proceedings by filing revised return of income Accordingly he contended that the order of Ld CIT(A) should be upheld. 4 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Hsbc Invest Direct (I) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4673/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri K Mohandas
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 28

Audit Report. Whereas, the assessee had suo moto offered the disallowance u/s 14A amounting to Rs. 1,30,69,000/- in its revised return of income. In response to the show cause notice, as to why Rule 8D should not be applied, the assessee submitted that it has made ... Since the amount of Rs. 1,30,69,000/- had already been offered by the assessee in the revised return, therefore, he restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1,22,66,688/-. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) held that, in the assessment year 2008-09 the CIT(A) has given certain

Hsbc Invest Direct (I) Ltd ( Formerly Il & Fs Investmart Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed whereas appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1601/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri K Mohandas
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 28

Audit Report. Whereas, the assessee had suo moto offered the disallowance u/s 14A amounting to Rs. 1,30,69,000/- in its revised return of income. In response to the show cause notice, as to why Rule 8D should not be applied, the assessee submitted that it has made ... Since the amount of Rs. 1,30,69,000/- had already been offered by the assessee in the revised return, therefore, he restricted the disallowance to Rs. 1,22,66,688/-. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) held that, in the assessment year 2008-09 the CIT(A) has given certain

Vinyroyal Plasicoates P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1240/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos.1240 & 1243/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2008-09 & 2009-10 बनाम/ M/S. Vinyroyal The Ito 9(3)-3, Plasticoates Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Plot No. 60Cd, Mumbai-400 020 Shlok Bldg., 1St Floor, Govt. Ind. Est, Charkop, Kandivli (W), Mumbai-400 067 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv 4165E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Mayur A. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Pawan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :08.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12 .2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Preferred Against Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-20, Mumbai Dated 17.12.2012 & 27.12.2012 Pertaining To Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. Both These Appeals Have Common Grievance By The Assessee Therefore They Were Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Mayur A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar
Section 36(1)(iii)

brought to the notice of the AO by way of a revised computation of income but the same was not accepted for want of revised return of income. The Ld. Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs Pruthivi

ITO 19(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Tejpal Singh Chadha, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7403/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7403/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Bahedia
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

income as LTCG instead of STCG is committed although there was no complexity in the transaction. The assessee has also not filed any revised return to rectify the mistake as claimed by the assessee. The facts in this case are different from the facts of Reliance Petro Products

ACIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Jatin J.Shah, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2725/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Ms.Vasanti B. Patel, &For Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

I.T.Act. 2. Common grounds are involved in all the appeals, wherein penalty was levied for the income surrendered in the revised return, therefore, all the appeals were heard together and now decided by this common order. 3. As per the details in the penalty order dated 17.3.2008 it transpires that ... impounded material, it was found that these purchases totaled to Rs.30,68,935/-. Subsequent to the survey conducted on 11.10.2006 assessee filed revised return of income for A.Y.2005-06 on 29.3.2007 declaring additional income of Rs.30,68,935/- with the following note :- “Survey u/s.133A was conducted on 11.10.2006 and during

ACIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Jay Fab, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2724/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Ms.Vasanti B. Patel, &For Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

I.T.Act. 2. Common grounds are involved in all the appeals, wherein penalty was levied for the income surrendered in the revised return, therefore, all the appeals were heard together and now decided by this common order. 3. As per the details in the penalty order dated 17.3.2008 it transpires that ... impounded material, it was found that these purchases totaled to Rs.30,68,935/-. Subsequent to the survey conducted on 11.10.2006 assessee filed revised return of income for A.Y.2005-06 on 29.3.2007 declaring additional income of Rs.30,68,935/- with the following note :- “Survey u/s.133A was conducted on 11.10.2006 and during

ACIT CC 34, Mumbai vs. Jay Fab, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3104/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Ms.Vasanti B. Patel, &For Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

I.T.Act. 2. Common grounds are involved in all the appeals, wherein penalty was levied for the income surrendered in the revised return, therefore, all the appeals were heard together and now decided by this common order. 3. As per the details in the penalty order dated 17.3.2008 it transpires that ... impounded material, it was found that these purchases totaled to Rs.30,68,935/-. Subsequent to the survey conducted on 11.10.2006 assessee filed revised return of income for A.Y.2005-06 on 29.3.2007 declaring additional income of Rs.30,68,935/- with the following note :- “Survey u/s.133A was conducted on 11.10.2006 and during

M/S A.K Electricals and Electronics, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 34(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1778/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Mathur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Tanuj Niyogi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

agreed to the mistake apparent from record but stated that this should have been rectified by the assessee itself by filing revised return, which it has not done. Accordingly, he has not accepted the plea of the assessee. I find that the assessee has filed revised computation 2 A.K. Electrical

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Rang Tarang Paints Corner, Delhi

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 1296/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

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

Though this explanation appears a little farfetched, the assessment order and penalty order are silent regarding the reasons for the appellant filing the revised return after including the additional income of Rs. 20,00,000/- offered during the survey on 27.09.2007. There is no dispute on the point that ... penalty order, it was only because the Assessing Officer had issued notice under section 143(2) on 17.08.2009 that the appellant filed a revised return on 22.01.2010 to include the additional income offered of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The fact that the appellant had already paid the tax of Rs.6

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Boyance Infrastructure Private Limited

WP/47042/2015HC Karnataka16 Dec 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition Nos. 47042-47045 Of 2015 (T-It)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 153A

provisions of Section 153A was not applicable for the assessment year 2013-14. On 24.03.2015, the assessee had thereafter filed revised return of income for the assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. In the revised return for the said years, 5 the assessee had offered ... assessment year 2013-14, the income offered in the return filed under Section 139(1) was reduced considerably. The total income declared in the revised returns of income for the assessment year 2010-11 is Rs.70,53,040/-, for the assessment year 2011-12 is Rs.27

Valiant Glass Works P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 5077/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.5077 & 6123/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2005-06 A N D आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5197/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2005-06 बनाम/ M/S. Valiant Glass Works The Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Cent. Cir. 39 Vs. C/O Shankarlal Jain & Mumbai Associates, 12, Engineer Bldg., 265, Princess Street, Mumbai-400 002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacv 1224E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri S.L. Jain ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri G.M. Dass सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :07.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :11.12.2015

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Dass
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80GSection 80H

relating to the transactions. Moreover, the assessee filed original return on 31.10.2004 which was revised on 29.3.2006 pursuant to survey operations and in the revised return of income, the income offered during the survey operations were offered for taxation and the assessment has been made as such vide order dated ... that the original return was filed on 25.10.2005. Pursuant to survey operation conducted on 5.1.2006, additional income was offered for taxation by filing a revised return of income on 30.6.2006. A notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued but no assessment made pursuant to this notice issued