← 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

Vargshese Paul, Banglaore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 5(3)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 584/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavvarghese Paul Acit, Circle - 5(3)(2) B604, Duo Harmony Room No. 59, 6Th Floor 1, Suranjan Das Road Hmt Bhvan, No. 59, Bellary Vs. New Thippasandra Post Road, Ganga Nagar Bangalore 560075 Bengaluru 560032 Pan – Aevpp6357A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan Ved, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. The Present Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising From The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-12, Bengaluru Dated 24.02.2023 Having Din No. Itba/Apl/M/250/ 2022-23/1050096242(1) & Relates To Ay 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds Of Appeal. Ground No. 1 & 5 Are General In Nature. In Ground Nos. 2 & 3 The Assessee Had Challenged The Applicability Of Article 4 Of India Us Dtaa To The Case Of The Assessee. In Ground No. 4 The Assessee Has Challenged The Denial Of Benefit Of Exemption Available To The Assessee Under Article 16 Of The India Us Dtaa. Beside These Grounds The Assessee Has Also Filed An Application On 29.07.2024 & Raised

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 90

year under consideration. The assessee has filed original return of income on 31.08.2015 declaring income or Rs. 1,84,12,210/-. The assessee filed revised return of income on 07.03.2017 showing total income of Rs. 1,50,43,540/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed

Deelip Ganpatrao Korde, Nashik vs. ACIT Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 1373/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1373/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Deelip Ganpatrao Korde, V The Assistant Shop No.1, Purvi Apt Behind S Commissioner Of Sai Palace, Chetna Nagar, Nashik Income Tax, Circle-1, – 422009. Nashik. Pan: Afnpk2831F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, Dated 16.05.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.74,64,500 U/S 68 Towards Alleged Unexplained Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period Made By The A.O. In The Ex-Parte Asst, Order U/S 144 On The Ground That The Appellant Had Failed To Explain Source Of The Cash Deposits In The Course Of The Ex-Parte Asst, Proceedings Without Appreciating That The Said Addition Was Not Justified On Facts & In Law.

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 274Section 68

observed that Assessee had filed Return of Income for A.Y.2017- 18 electronically, on 02.12.2017 declaring total income at Rs.20,81,520/-. Then, Assessee filed revised return declaring total income of Rs.20,31,970/-. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. The AO issued various notices including show cause notice

Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward -3(1), Chennai vs. Tam World Travel Private Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1793/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1793/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Tam World Travel Private Limited, Corporate Ward 3(1), Flat No. 1, Ground Floor, 27/13, Chennai. Venkataraman Street, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aaect5864C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.05.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Application Filed Seeking Adjournment. Thus, The Assessee-Respondent Called Absent & Set Exparte. We Proceed To Decide The Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr Basing On The Material Available On Record.

For Appellant: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 145

Assessing Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. At the outset, we note that the assessee is a company and filed revised return of income declaring NIL income. On an examination of the record, the Assessing officer asked the assessee to provide details of direct expenses amounting