“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

Rosy Blue (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 46, Mumbai

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

ITA 490/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 490/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2006-07 M/S. Rosy Blue (India) The Acit, Central Circle-46 बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 1608/09, Prasad Mumbai-400 020 Chambers, Opera House, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr 2413B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: Shri Nitesh Joshi Shri P.P. Bhandari ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 32

Commodity Market Group of cases on 19.6.2007. If the assessee was so honest in its statement of affairs, nothing prevented it from filing a revised return of income. Subsequent to the search on 19.6.2007, on 12.9.2007 the assessee filed a letter to the Additional Director of Investigation offering losses incurred ... losses at Rs. 16 crores which was offered for A.Y. 2007-08. Throughout this process, the assessee did not care to file a revised return of income for A.Y. 2006-07. It was only during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee came up with this claim of loss

ITO 8(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Rinita Implex P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3028/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta Nos. 2960 & 3028/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years:2009-10 & 2010-11 The Dcit-8(3), M/S. Rinita Impex Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Bombay Mutual Bldg., Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri A.K. SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain

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

different from the facts of immediately preceding assessment year inasmuch as in this year the assessee withdrew the claim of expenditure by filing a revised return of income. The return was revised after knowing the view taken by the AO and the First Appellate Authority for A.Y. 2009-10. Except ... possible view for A.Y 2008-09 and when that view was not accepted for A.Y. 2009-10, the assessee filed a revised return and accepted the view taken by the Revenue authorities. By any stretch of imagination, this cannot be considered 8 ITA. Nos. 2960 & 3028/M/14

DCIT 8(3), Mumbai vs. Rinita Impex P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2960/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri A.K. SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain

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

ADIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai vs. Dbs Bank Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3935/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri K.Ravi Ramchandran (CIT-DR)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 148

reassessment proceedings is valid and as per the provisions of the law. 3.3 The original return was revised by the assessee by filing a revised return of income and in the computation of income the assessee has deducted Rs.1,18,12,997 as income exempt u/s 10(23G) by referring

Strapping Solutions P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3516/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punniya, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Divya Bajpai, D.R

Section 10ASection 139Section 80I

Strapping Solutions P. Ltd. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the revised return of income filed by the assessee as non-est return and thereby disallowing deduction u/s. 80IB. 3. The appellant crave leave ... realised the error in claiming the deduction under section 10A instead of section 80IB of the Income Tax Act. The assessee therefore filed a revised return making the claim under section 80IB. However, the claim of the assessee was rejected on the grounds that the revised return was not filed

District Co- Operative Bank Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3533/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Ita No. 3533/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Hemand Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 4Section 80

facts assessee claimed the deduction and later on pointing out the error of unavailable claim of deduction u/s 80 P withdrew same by filing revised return of income. In that case after issue of show cause notice and pursuing the reply of the assessee, AO himself dropped the penalty proceedings ... that in AY 2007-08, assessee withdrew its claim by filing a letter and in AY 2008-09 it withdrew by filing a revised return. We are of the view that this difference cannot make the assessee liable for payment of penalty. It is highly unusual that in one year

Dinesh Khanna, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

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

ITA 1852/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.1852/Mum/2014 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) बनाम/ Shri Dinesh Khanna, The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle No.39, 501,502 Ashok House, Vs. Mumbai. Gandhigram Road, Juhu, Mumbai-400053 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

declared income from bank accounts and perquisite value of rent free accommodation. However, before the completion of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed revised return of income on 29.12.2008 i.e. just two days before the completion of assessment proceedings, declaring the total income of Rs.30.39 lakhs by declaring the income from ... that the assessee, upon being questioned by the AO, has furnished all the materials relating to the above said two additions and also filed revised return of income offering them to tax. He further submitted that the revised return of income was filed within the time prescribed

ACIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai vs. Vishal Jayendra. Jhaveri, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2147/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153A

153C cannot be interpreted to be further innings to the AO and/or assessee beyond the provisions of section 139(return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263( revision of orders) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court has further observed that

ACIT Cen Cir 33, Mumbai vs. Vishal Jayendra. Jhaveri, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2146/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153A

The Kangra Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 840/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

free interest of Rs. 2,55,233/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim on the ground that no revised return of income was filed but only revised computation of income was filed during the course of assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer had not disputed the veracity of the claim ... Goetz India Ltd. Vs. CIT (Supra) and held that the assessee was not entitled for deduction, he had not made these claims by filing revised return of income. On appeal before the CIT(A) also, the CIT(A) confirmed the same by holding that the Assessing Officer had no power

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Oasis Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5174/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri A.T. Varkey

For Appellant: S/Shri K.K. Sharma & Sumeet Kaul, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam. Kanunjna, Senior DR

Section 10Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 40

unit is located in STPI, Noida. The return of income was filed on 30.09.2009 declaring NIL income. Later, the assessee filed a revised return on 10.02.2010 at NIL income. The case was processed u/s 2 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). Subsequently, the case ... fact that when the deduction claimed u/s 10-B in original return is incorrect than deduction u/s 10A can be claimed instead through a revised return. 3. Whether on the facts & in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the rent expenditure for Kanpur

The Kangra Co-Operative Bank Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed in ITA No

ITA 1432/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

P.Karvannan, Sivakasi vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1310/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. V. Rajasekaran, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Before ld.CIT(A), the ld. AR argued that the assessee has 5. included adayam receipts in the revised return of income filed on 22.12.2010 were as the Assessing Officer has not considered the return and again taxed the adayam receipts and also capital ... considered the submission of ld. AR and concluded that the Assessing Officer made assessment based on original return filed on 19.10.2010 and not revised return. Since, the revised return is not subject to appeal confirmed the addition of "3,40,000/- adayam receipts. Similarly, addition of "2,00,000/- introduced

Piramyd Retail & Merchandising P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4848/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri S K Mahapatra

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 37(1)

original return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter assessee had filed revised return of income on 17.03.2006 enhancing the loss to Rs. 10,54,67,458/-. The Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act determining the total loss

M/S Bucyrus India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 616/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Oct 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Manoneet Dalal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Das, CIT, ld.DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 147Section 148Section 92C

loss of Rs. 4,36,97,339/-. Later the same was revised on 26.3.2012 declaring loss of Rs. 3,78,75,426/-. This revised return was filed within the due date prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act. b) The assessment was completed

M/S Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

C.A. No.-010547-010548 - 2011Supreme Court15 Oct 2015

Section 35ASection 37

MGBW (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Assessee’) filed its return for the period 18th November, 1994 to 31st March, 1995 and subsequently filed a revised return. Broadly, the Assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 12,24,700/- as a revenue expenditure permissible under Section 37 of the Income

M/S Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

C.A. No.-010547-010548 - 2011Supreme Court15 Oct 2015

Section 35ASection 37

Ashish Gandhi Builders, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 10(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6337/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

For Respondent: Ms. Vinita J. Menon

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

looking after the business.The Hon’ble Court had held that it was not the case of the revenue that the assessee filed revised return as some inaccurate particulars of income were detected by the AO during the course of assessment.In our opinion facts of the case of Girish Devchand Rajani

Nationwide Pharmassist Distribution Pvt. Ltd ( Now Merged With Bigdeal Mercantile P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 7(1)(1)

ITA 5648/MUM/2008[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2015AY 1998-1999

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Saktijit Deyआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.5648 & 49/Mum/2008,& 5650/Mum/08, िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-1998-99,2000-01 & 2002-03 Nationwide Pharmassist Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(1) Distribution Private Limited Mumbai. (Now Merged With Bigdeal Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.) Vs Nicholas Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013. Pan: Aaacn 3346 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry & Shri Neeraj Seth राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Samir Tekriwal-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2015 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14-10-2015 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 1961 की धारा 254 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश 1961 1961 254 254 Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) खंडपीठ के अनुसार Per Bench- Challenging The Order Dated 06.06.2008 Of Cit(A)-Vii,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Three Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry & Shri Neeraj SethFor Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Before him,it was contended that the revised return was filed under protest, that out of abundant caution the interest income was shown under the head income from other sources, that the quantum appeal ... confirmed by the FAA, that no further appeal to the Tribunal was filed to avoid unnecessary litigation, that the revised return was filed without making any addition,that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. After considering the submission of the assessee and the penalty order

Furniture Concepts (I) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 9(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3706/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year 2007-08 M/S Furniture Concepts (I) Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, बनाम/ 1St Floor, Vikas Center, S.V. Range-9(1), Room No.223, Vs. Road, Santacruz (West), 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400054 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabcc1243K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Ms. Lata Sunder M.S. Matnuria-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 08/10/2015 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2015 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 44A

behalf of the assessee is that the assessee filed revised computation before the ld. Assessing Officer which was not considered by him and further revised return could not be filed as time for filing the revised return has already been elapsed. Reliance was placed upon the decision ... letter dated 14/10/2009 informed the Assessing Officer of the correction, accordingly, the corrected computation was filed with a request to treat the same as revised return since the time limit, prescribed for filing the revised return, had elapsed. However, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment