“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

Hsbc Securities and Capital Markets (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 6950/MUM/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 154

total income of Rs. 14,65,03,840/-. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) on 14.02.2003. Thereafter, the assessee had filed its revised return of income on 14.10.2003 declaring total income of Rs. 14,47,53,500/-. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny by issuance ... reasons recorded” :- “The Assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2002 declaring total income at Rs.14,65,03,840/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed its revised return of income on 14.10.2003 declaring total income at Rs. 14,47,53,500/-. The assessment u/s.143(3) was completed on 28.01.2005 assessing the total

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Meera Cotton Synthetics Mills P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7007/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year- 2006-07 Dcit-9(2), M/S Meera Cotton & R. No.218, 2Nd Floor, Synthetics Mills Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 401, 402, Express Zone, Vs. M.K.Road, W.E. Highway, A.W. Mumbai-400020 Opportunity, Reliance Office, Near Patel Uanika, Malad (East), Mumbai-400097 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aabcm8385J

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

notice of the 3 M/s Meeta Cotton & Synthetics Mills Pvt. Ltd. Assessing Officer by the assessee and requested to permit the assessee to file revised return. The assessee suo-moto filed the revised computation and offered the same for taxation. The Assessing Officer duly considered the explanation of the assessee ... noted that during assessment proceedings itself, the assessee filed corrected computation of income by filing revised return, thus, neither there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. It is simple case of disallowance, therefore, the assessee further find support from the ratio laid down

Dr. Ashwin Balachand Mehta, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 11(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6293/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, D.R

Section 14ASection 54(1)Section 54E

Return of Income on the ground that any claim which is not made in the return of income cannot be substituted without filing of revised return of income. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant's claim of deduction u/s.54(1) of Rs.25 ... deduction of Rs.16,81,790/- only was made. He held that the assessee, since, had not revised the claim by way of filing a revised return of income, hence the claim ITA Nos.5329 & 6293/M/2012 4 Dr. Ashwin Balchand Mehta of the assessee could not be considered in this respect

Addl CIT 3(1), Mumbai vs. Gateway Distriparks Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5371/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur a/wFor Respondent: Smt. Anupama Shukla

Section 80I

assessment year 2008–09, the assessee filed its return of income on 29th September 2008, declaring total income of ` 17,23,16,060. Subsequently, revised return was filed by the assessee on 13th June 2009, declaring total income of ` 17,23,16,060. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer

Dr. Ashwin Balchand Mehta, Mumbai vs. JCIT RG 11(2), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5329/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan, D.R

Section 14ASection 54(1)Section 54E

Ingersoll-Rand(India) Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT Cr11(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 228/BANG/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Nov 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-III(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

charged on AE debts outstanding exceeding six 11,04,290 months Total 1,64,44,290 Computation of Total Income Returned income (as per revised return): Rs.78,77,81,515 Add: Difference of ALP determined by the TPO u/s. 92CA(4) of the Act : Rs. 1,64,44,290 --------------------- Total ... extent of Rs. 5,92,70,316 as against Rs. 6,05,12,937 claimed by the assessee in the revised return of income, thus resulting in a short credit of Rs. 12,42,621. 4) Interest under Section 234B - The learned AO has erred in levying interest under section

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Srimantha Granites

Appeals are dismissed

ITTA/298/2015HC Telangana05 Nov 2015

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 260

Assessees filed returns of income for A.Y.1 2008-09 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short) and revised returns excluding capital gains derived from the sale of their lands. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section ... sold by them are capital assets and the capital gains arising on the said assets are chargeable to tax: Assessee Original return of income Revised return of income M R Seetha Ram 14,86,22,780/- 22,90,570/- M R Pattabhi Ram 14,79,185/- - MR Kodanda

Damask Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2775/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.6216/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.2775/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10 M/S. Damsak Projects Pvt. The Dy.Comm. Of Income Tax, बनाम/ Ltd. Range 6(2), Vs. 167, Ready Money Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Raod, Terrace, Dr. Annie Besaant Mumbai 400 020 Road, Worli Naka, Mumbai 400 018 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaccd 5994P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Firoz Andhyarujina ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri A.K.Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Firoz AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Srivastava

that the AO has completed the assessment by overlooking a very important fact that of filing of revised return by the assessee. The Ld. DR continued by arguing that since the AO has completely ignored the revised return, the entire assessment has become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest ... purchase deed of immoveable properties purchased during the previous year relevant to assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10. Q.8. Copy of original and revised return filed alongwith copy of P&L account, balance sheet, auditor’s report from A.Yrs 2008-09 & 2010-11. Q.9. Purpose of transferring fixed assets

DCIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai vs. Chawla Brothers P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as of the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 6736/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri R. C. Sharma & Amarjit Singh] आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6736/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian (DR)

Section 22Section 23Section 80I

declaring total income of Rs.1,04,640/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IA for a sum of Rs.36,39,273/. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 24-03-2012 declaring total income at Rs.1,04,641/- after claiming deduction u/s 80IA ... original return, the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IA at Rs.36,39,273/- in respect of power generation business through Wind Mill. Subsequently, in the revised return the assessee enhanced the claim of deduction to Rs.39,42,204/-. The assessee also claimed depreciation of Rs.3,02,935/- on the land

Damask Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6216/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Firoz AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Srivastava

Chawla Brothers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as of the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 6047/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri R. C. Sharma & Amarjit Singh] आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6736/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian (DR)

Section 22Section 23Section 80I

ITO (TDS), Rohtak vs. The Executive Engineer, Jhajjar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6494/DEL/2013[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita Nos. 635 & 63/Del/2013 : Asstt. Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs M/S D.D. Industries Ltd. New Delhi B-8, Mayapuri, Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita Nos. 266 & 264/Del/2013 : Asstt. Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 M/S D.D. Industries Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle-1, B-8, Mayapuri, Industrial Area, New Delhi Phase-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd0148D Assessee By : Sh. Salil Aggarwal & Shailesh Gupta, Advs. Revenue By : Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal & Shailesh Gupta, AdvsFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. DR

aside the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 in respect of one issue relating to income of Rs. 1.63 crore shown in the revised return of income. 4. We, therefore, by considering the totality of the facts as discussed herein above, are of the view that these appeal under

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dd Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 635/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal & Shailesh Gupta, AdvsFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. DR

D.D. Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 266/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal & Shailesh Gupta, AdvsFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y. Shirpa, Sr. DR

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Makino India Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 935/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kaleemulla Khan, JCIT (D.R)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

brought on record in the assessment proceedings of the amalgamated entity, viz. Makino India Pvt Ltd. for Assessment Year 2003-04. iii) In the revised return of income filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2003-04 on 31.10.2004, the total loss claimed is Rs.5,26,18,845, comprising

Makino India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1016/BANG/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kaleemulla Khan, JCIT (D.R)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

I.T.O WD - 2(3), Kolkata. vs. M/S Last Peak Data Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 154/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri Vasant SubramanyanFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 14

grounds has not chosen to take objection on this aspect. Nevertheless, the appellate authorities can take note of claim not made in a revised return of income, more so in the present case where a claim had been made in a revised computation of total income before the AO. This

I.T.O. Ward 3(3), Kalyan vs. Castle Enterprises, Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1724/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

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

which mainly included profit of Rs. 18,58,295/- derived from ‘Vedant Project’ which was not shown earlier in the original return. In the revised return, the assessee has given detailed reasons for revising the return which has been incorporated by the AO at page 2 of the assessment order

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. B.T. (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the case is ordered to be restored to Ld

ITA 1496/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Sandeep Bandhu, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 92C

facts of this case are: assessee had filed original return of income on 27.01.2006 declaring income of Rs.72,60,680/- and subsequently filed revised return of income on 10.11.10.11.2006 declaring ‘nil’ income after setting off of B/F unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.2,06,63,235/- in the statement of taxable income

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

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2714/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Inturi Rama Rao Assessment Year: 2002-03 Assistant Cit, Vs. Brijwasi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-12, 1170- Kuccha Mahajani, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi-1100 06 (Pan: Aabcb7530L) Cross-Objection No.9/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2002-03 Brijwasi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, 1170- Kuccha Mahajani, Central Circle-12, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcb7530L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Deputy Cit, Vs. Brijwasi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-12, 1170- Kuccha Mahajani, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi-1100 06 (Pan: Aabcb7530L) Cross-Objection No.10/Del/2013 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Brijwasi Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, 1170- Kuccha Mahajani, Central Circle-12, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcb7530L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 Brijwasi Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Cit, 1170-Kucha Mahajani, Central Circle 12, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aabcb7530L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2006-07 Deputy Cit, Vs. Brijwasi Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-12, 1170-Kucha Mahajani, New Delhi. Chandni Chowk, Delhi. (Pan: Aabcb7530L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv. & SaileshFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT( DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Rs.52,85,904 is a duplicate addition and deserves to be deleted. 40. It was pointed out by the assessee that while filing the revised return, it had claimed silver worth Rs.21,27,200 belonging to the Karigars out of the silver found and claimed the same ... deduction from the value of gold chains surrendered in the revised return. The value of silver belonging to Karigars was arrived at on the basis of seized loose papers during search. Photo copies of these loose papers made available at page Nos. 59 to 107 of the paper book