← 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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1), Hyderabad vs. Union Bank of India, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1230/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

declaring total income of Rs.1253,12,47,762/-, which was later revised to Rs.1215,63,87,340/- by filing the revised return on 31.03.2014. The case has been taken up for scrutiny and the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 12.02.2015 and determined the total ... pointed out by the Supreme Court in M/s. Motor Industries Company (supra), it is always open for the assessee or appellant to file a revised return and claim the deduction. Even if assessment is completed, assessee could have demanded adjustment or refund by preferring the claim in time. But that

Union Bank of India, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissisoner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as well as the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1018/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1018/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Andhra Bank Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aabca7375C Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1230/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 ) Dy. C. I. T. Vs. Andhra Bank Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7375C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ananthan, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee, As Well As The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16/02/2016 Of Page 1 Of 59

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)
Section 36(1)(vi)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

declaring total income of Rs.1253,12,47,762/-, which was later revised to Rs.1215,63,87,340/- by filing the revised return on 31.03.2014. The case has been taken up for scrutiny and the assessment has been completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 12.02.2015 and determined the total ... pointed out by the Supreme Court in M/s. Motor Industries Company (supra), it is always open for the assessee or appellant to file a revised return and claim the deduction. Even if assessment is completed, assessee could have demanded adjustment or refund by preferring the claim in time. But that

Kalyanasundaram Suresh, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Chennai

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

ITA 297/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.297/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kalyanasundaram Suresh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. 12-A, New No. 24, Income Tax, Swarnamangalam East Road, West Non Corporate Circle 2, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai 600 035. [Pan: Aobps4696F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate Drew Our Attention To The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Filed On 10.12.2023 & Submits That The Said 3 Grounds Of Appeal May Be Taken Up First The Ld. Dr Shri R.V.

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 5

respect of the assessee to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle II, Chennai on the basis revised return of income. The ld. DR argued that the provisions under section 127 of the Act are not applicable. 5. After hearing both the parties, we note that the year under ... original return of income declaring a total income of ₹.7,70,900/- and the same is revised as ₹.18,69,969/- in terms of revised return of income. Having taken into account the revised return of income, wherein, the monetary limit for the assessment is changed from

Tirumurugan Traders, Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1). Erode, Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 268/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.267 & 268/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Thirumurugan Traders, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 11-B, East Kongalamman Koil Street, Ward 1(1), Erode 638 001. Erode. [Pan: Aabft2766P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 04.12.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Delhi For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since Both The Appeals Are Filed By Same Assessee & Issues Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear Both The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

raised by the assessee questioning the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the view of the Assessing Officer in treating the revised return of income as invalid. 6. The ld. AR Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate submits that the assessee filed return of income declaring a total income ... Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Thereafter, a survey was conducted on 17.03.2017, in response to which, the assessee filed revised return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring same income as admitted in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. He drew our attention

Tirumurugan Traders, Erode vs. ITO, Ward -1(1), Erode

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 267/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.267 & 268/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Thirumurugan Traders, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 11-B, East Kongalamman Koil Street, Ward 1(1), Erode 638 001. Erode. [Pan: Aabft2766P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Both Dated 04.12.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac Delhi For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. Since Both The Appeals Are Filed By Same Assessee & Issues Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To Hear Both The Appeals Together & Pass Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

raised by the assessee questioning the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the view of the Assessing Officer in treating the revised return of income as invalid. 6. The ld. AR Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate submits that the assessee filed return of income declaring a total income ... Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. Thereafter, a survey was conducted on 17.03.2017, in response to which, the assessee filed revised return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring same income as admitted in the original return of income filed under section 139(1) of the Act. He drew our attention