“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

DCIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Nadir Nazarali Dhanani, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 100/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Saktijit Deyआमकय अऩीर सं. / Ita No.100/Mum./2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009–10) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle–24(3), C–11, 7Th Floor …….………. अऩीरधथी / Bandra Kurla Complex Appellant Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 V/S Shri Nadir Nazarali Dhanani Plot No.1B, Cama Industrial Estate ..…….………. प्रत्मथी / Cama Estate Main Road Respondent Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan – Aabpd3008Q प्रत्मधऺेऩ सं. / C.O. No. 42/Mum./2014 (आमकय अऩीर सं. 100/Mum./2013 से उद्बूत) (Arising Out Of Ita No. 100/Mum./2013 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009–10) Shri Nadir Nazarali Dhanani Plot No.1B, Cama Industrial Estate …….………. अऩीरधथी / Cama Estate Main Road Appellant Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan – Aabpd3008Q V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax ..…….………. प्रत्मथी / Circle–24(3), C–11, 7Th Floor Bandra Kurla Complex Respondent Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051 यधजस्व की ओय से / Revenue By : Shri Santosh Mankaskar ननधधारयती की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Yougesh Thar A/W Shri Devang K. Shah

For Appellant: Shri Yougesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Mankaskar

Section 50C

return of income for the assessment year under consideration on 6th October 2009, declaring total income of ` 28,24,185. Subsequently, he filed a revised return of income on 4th February 2011, declaring total income of ` 28,77,839. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, on the basis

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Global Associates, New Delhi

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

ITA 3332/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Ranka, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate

Section 143(1)

transportation and loading & unloading of minerals. He filed his return of income with Circle 36(1), New Delhi on 30.09.2009 and latter filed a revised return on 05.03.2010 declaring total income of Rs.3,33,45,060/-. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) on 28.01.2011 at the income ... declared in the revised return. The case was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs.1,39,16,741/- on the ground that there is a mismatch with Form No. 26AS. In Form No. 26AS, there was difference of above amount in the name of one party

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT

In the result, IT(TP)A No

ITA 184/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Sahay, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 40A(2)Section 92C

original return of income as against returned loss of Rs. 3,67,17,5 24 as per the revised return of income. 7. The Ld. AO has erred in charging interest under section 234B and 234D of the Act at Rs. 63,23,989 and Rs. 7,96,230 respectively

Herbalife International India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

In the result, IT(TP)A No

ITA 1679/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Sahay, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 40A(2)Section 92C

ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. Morarjee Textiles Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6200/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Saktijit Deyआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No. 6200/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit, Circle-6(3) M/S.Morarjee Textiles Ltd. R.No.522, 5Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Peninsula Spenta Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs Mathuradas Mills Compound Mumbai-400 020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013. Pan:Aaacm 2725 R

For Appellant: Shri Samir TekriwalFor Respondent: Shri Ronak Doshi

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

Mumbai,the Assessing Officer(AO) has filed the present appeal. Assessee-company filed its return of income on 26.09.2009.A revised return was filed on 16.03. 2011,declaring total income of Rs.(-)31.91 Crores under the normal provisions and book loss of Rs.30.03 Crores u/s.115JB of the Act.The AO completed

Whirlpool of India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1116/DEL/2013[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2015AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. G.C.Gupta, V.P. & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am Ita No. 1116/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. Tapa & Ram Misra, Adv., Sh. Abhimanyu Jhamba, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P.Dum Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 163(3)

emanating from the order u/s 143(3) and it is a fresh claim, which should have been raised only through filing timely revised return. 02. The brief facts as culled out are that M/s Whirlpool of India Limited is an agent u/s 163(3) of the Act of its holding ... dismissed the additional ground holding that this is a fresh claim made by the assessee without filing revised return of income and also the issue is not emanating from the assessment order. Against dismissal of additional ground assessee is in appeal before us. 3 Whirlpool of India 03. Before

The Commissioner of Income-tax-I vs. Derco Cooling Coils Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

ITTA/175/2015HC Telangana08 Oct 2015

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Appeals are dismissed

ITTA/176/2015HC Telangana08 Oct 2015

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Section 260

Ca India Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. RG. 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 8376/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal ,Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand -CIT

Section 254(1)Section 271

debts written off of Rs.69,45,581/- was inadvertently not claimed as a deduction by the assessee either in original or the revised return of the income,that it realized the mistake during assessment proceedings,that vide its letter dated 22.11.2006 it made the above claim. After considering the submissions ... such claim of debit to the provisions for Doubtful Debt account by the assessee could have been made in the return filed or the revised return filed by it,that the assessee had not made claim for such deduction in either its return or in the revised return filed,that

ACIT Cir 10(1), Mumbai vs. Ca (India) Technologies P. Ltd ( Formerly Knowan As C.A. Computer Associates (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 8106/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal ,Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand -CIT

Section 254(1)Section 271

Ca (India) Technologies P Ltd`, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 8218/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchan Kaushal ,Dhanesh Bafna &For Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand -CIT

Section 254(1)Section 271

Smt. Parna Pradeep Patkar, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7131/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Parna Pradeep Patkar Addl. Cit, Range-19(3), L/H Of Late Shri Prabhakar Piramal Chambers, R. Patkar, Patkar Bungalow, 34-D, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Turner Road, Bandra(W), Mumbai-400050 Pan: Agjpp7586K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Basanti PatelFor Respondent: Shri B.S.Bist (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 54F

contention of the assessee and observed that if by mistake and incorrect claim of incorrect income was shown, the assessee could have filed its revised return within time limit allowed to him. As the revised return was not filed, so the claim for reduce his income cannot be entertained

DCIT, Circle - 4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Neptune Exports Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed and C

ITA 1385/KOL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/ Shri R. P. Agarwal & J. M. Thard, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCIT

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 80H

exemption u/s. 10B, without appreciating the fact that the assessee did not claim such deduction in the original Return or even by filling a revised Return and also no statutory Audit Report in Form No. 10CCAC was submitted by the assessee.” 3. Briefly stated facts are that assessee claimed exemption

DCIT, Circle - 4, Kolkata vs. M/S. Neptune Exports Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s Appeals are dismissed and C

ITA 1384/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: S/ Shri R. P. Agarwal & J. M. Thard, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, JCIT

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 80H

ACIT, Rewari vs. Sh. Rajender Singh Yadav, Gurgaon

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4169/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddyay : - 2008-09 Acit, Circle: Rewari Vs. Sh. Rajender Singh Yadav Aayakar Bhawan, Model Town 158, Housing Board Colony Rewari Jharsa Road, Gurgaon Pan: Aabpy 9819 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr.D.R. Respondent By: Sh. Gautam Jain, C.A.

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Jain, C.A

Section 54F

submitted that once the return has been filed, the claim of deductions gets finalized. He pointed out that the assessee has not filed a revised return of income before the time allowed u/s 139(4) and hence the issue does not arise. 6. On the other hand, the Ld.Counsel

D.C.I.T Cir - VI, Kolkata. vs. M/S J.K. Tyre & Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 303/KOL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Kumar, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr.Counsel and Shri Saurabh Bagaria, Advocate

Section 115JSection 35Section 40A

admissible but since such a claim was not made in the return of income nor did the Assessee file a revised return of income making such a claim, the AO ought not to have allowed the claim in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the AO cannot entertain a claim by the Assessee without filing a revised return of income making such a claim. He was also of the view that the CIT(A) in pursuance of the directions of the Tribunal had not decided

Rajneesh Chopra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1232/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Ketia, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 148

much higher than the net profit declared by the assessee in his original return filed on 31.10.2005 at Rs.3,40,057/- and in the revised return filed on 29.9.2010 at Rs.22,58,500/- in response to notice u/s 148. showing undisclosed income in the revised return. The assessee submitted that ... impounded registers as opposed to a sum of Rs.22,58,500/- which was declared by the assessee in the revised return of income. During the course of the first appellate proceedings, the assessee filed, inter alia, a summary of recordings in the impounded register containing infirmities in the calculation

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Mr. Rajneesh Chopra, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Ketia, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 148

Pr. Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs. E-Funds International India Pvt. Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/607/2015HC Delhi06 Oct 2015

Section 10ASection 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 80Section 80H

rejected the stand of the Assessee and noted that it had only filed a revised computation and not a revised return. It was held that although the net taxable income as per the original return and the revised computation remained the same, the significant changes in the profits ... under Section 10A and Section 80HHE in the revised computation vis-a-vis the original return. With the time limit for filing of a revised return having elapsed, the AO refused to take cognizance of the revised computation. 13. In the appeal filed by the Assessee against the aforementioned assessment

TAX – 21 vs. Universal Precision Screws

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/392/2015HC Delhi06 Oct 2015

Section 10ASection 10B

return of income for AY 2009- 10 on 23rd September, 2009 declaring a total income of Rs.1,71,91,590/-. Thereafter, it filed a revised return revising its total income to 2015:DHC:8411-DB ITA 392/2015 Page 2 of 5 Rs.1,59,35,040/-. The Assessee claimed deduction under