← 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.

Madhya Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal
241 ITR 124 · 2000 · High Court
89
citing judgments

A penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied if an assessee files a revised return to buy peace and avoid litigation, and the revenue accepts this without objection.

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.

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

Ncgb Retrofit Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, subject to the verification as mentioned

ITA 1511/KOL/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2024AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2023-24 Ncgb Retrofit Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata 3A, St. George Terrace, Vs Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Kolkata-700022, West Bengal Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacn8752B Present For: Appellant By : Shri Anup Singh, Ar Respondent By : Shri Supriya Pal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.12.2024 O R D E R Per Rakesh Mishra: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-12, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Addl/ Jt. Cit (A)” ) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Ay 2023-24 Dated 22.05.2024, Which Has Been Passed Against The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru.

For Appellant: Shri Anup Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Supriya Pal, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

been filed on 31.12.2021 and 23.09.2022 respectively, which were within the due date/extended due date for the Assessment Years concerned. While processing the revised return for the A.Y. 2023- 24 of the assessee under Section 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 22/12/2023, the Ld. AO did not consider ... A.Ys. 2021-22 and 2022-23 were filed within the due dates and merely because the return for A.Y. 2023-24 and the revised return were filed on 13.10.2023 and 24.11.2023 NCGB Retrofit Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2023-24 respectively, which according to the Ld. Addl./Jt. CIT(A) were

Kumaon Exports Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 14(2), Delhi

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

ITA 39/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareekkumaon Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 14 (2), F-26, G.N. 6, Khasara No.41/5/1 & 28/5/2, Delhi. Sadatpur Karawal Nagar, Delhi – 110 094. (Pan : Aaack3655L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Rishpal Bedi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 Date Of Order : 05.12.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-3, Chennai (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Cit (A)’) Dated 13.12.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Assessee Has Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 23.10.2018 For Assessment Year 2018-19 & Filed Form 10Ccb To Claim The Deduction Under Section 80Ic Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Only On 05.11.2018. Subsequently, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 80I

assessee 2 revised its return of income and the assessment under section 143(1) of the Act was completed on the basis of revised return of income without allowing the deduction u/s 80IC of the Act for delayed submission of Form 10CCB. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred ... days from the last date of filing the return of income. He submitted that the CPC has completed 143 (1) assessment after considering the revised return of income. He submitted that assessee has submitted Form 10CCB before completion of 143 (1) proceedings. In this regard, he relied on the decision

Dayal Singh, Vill Fatehpur Po Burewala vs. ITO Ward-1, Panchkula

In the result, the ground no

ITA 519/CHANDI/2024[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 519/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Dayal Singh, The Ito, Vill Fatehpur Ward -1, Po Burewala Panchkula Distt.Amabla 134204 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acdps7697G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Y.R. Saini, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl. / Jcit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assess Ee In This Appeal H As Taken Foll Owing Groun Ds Of Appeal: 1 That In The F Acts & Circumstance Of The Case The Id. Addl/Jcit (A)-9 Mumbai Of Cit (A)( Nfac) Has Erred In Law By Placing Reliance On Judgement Of Hon'Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Maji Sinneman Vs Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Y.R. Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

That receipts of Rs 19,98,055/- on account of Voluntary Retirement Compensation has been claimed exempt u/s 10(10B) in the revised return dated 24/08/2018 only due to the f act the there was a closure of the company HMT tractor division of HMT L td. Treating ... Division is proposed to be closed down. Tax was deducted at source on compensation received at the time of VRS Appellant by way of revised return claimed that the said compensation is exempt under Second proviso and first explanation of Section 10(108) of Act. For this appellant placed reliance