← 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

Janaki Thangam Educationnel Trust, Chennai vs. ITO (Exemptions) Ward 3, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1630/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1617 & 1630/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Janaki Thangam The Income Tax Officer Educational Trust, Vs. (Exemptions), Plot No.9, Sanathana Srinivasa Ward 3, Perumal Koil Street, Chennai. Tnhb Special Scheme, Mogappair West, Chennai – 600 037. Pan: Aaatj 5734C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Seetharaman, Ca Shri B. Gowthaman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147

money for charitable purpose, evidence regarding purchase of property and hence, the appeal was dismissed. The CIT(A)-NFAC further in regard to revised return also noted that the assessee failed to demonstrate what was omission for which the return was revised ITA Nos.1617 & 1630/Chny/2023 and hence, has not accepted ... revised return. As the facts clearly demonstrate that the assessee has filed reply dated 28.09.2022 and also on 13.10.2022 but from the order of CIT(A)-NFAC it is not emerging what was the reply. 9.1 Without speaking on merits, we are of the view that the CIT(A)-NFAC

Janaki Thangam Educationnel Trust, Chennai vs. ITO (Exemptions) Ward-3, Chenai, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1617/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1617 & 1630/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Janaki Thangam The Income Tax Officer Educational Trust, Vs. (Exemptions), Plot No.9, Sanathana Srinivasa Ward 3, Perumal Koil Street, Chennai. Tnhb Special Scheme, Mogappair West, Chennai – 600 037. Pan: Aaatj 5734C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Seetharaman, Ca Shri B. Gowthaman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Sanjay Gandhi, JCIT
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147

money for charitable purpose, evidence regarding purchase of property and hence, the appeal was dismissed. The CIT(A)-NFAC further in regard to revised return also noted that the assessee failed to demonstrate what was omission for which the return was revised ITA Nos.1617 & 1630/Chny/2023 and hence, has not accepted ... revised return. As the facts clearly demonstrate that the assessee has filed reply dated 28.09.2022 and also on 13.10.2022 but from the order of CIT(A)-NFAC it is not emerging what was the reply. 9.1 Without speaking on merits, we are of the view that the CIT(A)-NFAC

Sree Ganesh Gears Private Limited, Mysuru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Mysuru

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

ITA 824/BANG/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2006-07 M/S. Sree Ganesh Gears The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of Plot No. 106, Belegola Income Tax, Industrial Area, Circle – 1(2), Mysuru – 570 016. Mysuru. Vs. Pan: Aaecs8142C Appellant Respondent : Shri Ajith .V, Advocate I/B Shri Assessee By B.S. Balachandran, Advocate : Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Revenue By Counsel For Department Date Of Hearing : 30-05-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-06-2024 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 05/03/2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2006-07. “Legal Grounds: 1. The Order Dated 04 March 2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Is Bad & Erroneous & Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case; 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant On The Grounds Of Limitation Without Appreciating That The Appeal Was Filed Within The Time Limit Provided By The Hon'Ble High Court

For Respondent: Shri Ajith .V, Advocate i/b Shri
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 43B

purpose of capital investment which is not liable for tax and hence declared additional income to the extent of Rs.39,63,967/- in the revised return. The AO completed the assessment accepting the returned income of Rs.40,99,120/- as per the return of income filed in response to notice

Shri Rangasamy Sekar, Chennai vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-17(1), Chennai

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

ITA 379/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.379/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Rangasamy Sekar, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 76, Cathedral Road, Income Tax, Gopalapuram, Chennai 600 083. Non Corporate Circle 17(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aakps4106P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K.R. Sudersan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Sudersan, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)(a)

India) Ltd. (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the first appellate authority declined to entertain the same by stating that the assessee has not filed revised return of income for claiming the deduction. 4. Before us, the ld. AR submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case ... exemption. When the assessee has realized that the compensation is exempt under law during Covid-19 pandemic period, the prescribed time to file revised return of income was not available. The ld. DR did not dispute the same. Further, the ld. AR brought to our notice, that the compensation

Shivananda Patil, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 32/KOL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 30 To 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 Shivananda Patil Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Beipp9978P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21 To 2022-23. 2. As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Common Issue Involved In These Appeals That Arises For Our Adjudication Is In Respect Of Denial Of Relief Claimed U/S 90 Of The Act On Account Of Delay In Furnishing Of Form 67 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

assessee filed Form 6 I.T.A. No. 30 to 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 to 2022-23 Shivananda Patil 67 on 28. 09. 2018 alongwith revised return. Under these given facts and circumstances, where the assessee filed the original return on 06.07.2017 when there was no mechanism for filing Form ... expiry of the due date prescribed under section 139( 4) of the Act, the assessee furnished Form 67 and also f iled the revised return. I am of the considered view that the claim of the assessee towards withholding taxes paid in Tanzania is to be given against

Shivananda Pati, Jalpaiguri vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 31/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 30 To 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 Shivananda Patil Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Beipp9978P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21 To 2022-23. 2. As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Common Issue Involved In These Appeals That Arises For Our Adjudication Is In Respect Of Denial Of Relief Claimed U/S 90 Of The Act On Account Of Delay In Furnishing Of Form 67 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

assessee filed Form 6 I.T.A. No. 30 to 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 to 2022-23 Shivananda Patil 67 on 28. 09. 2018 alongwith revised return. Under these given facts and circumstances, where the assessee filed the original return on 06.07.2017 when there was no mechanism for filing Form ... expiry of the due date prescribed under section 139( 4) of the Act, the assessee furnished Form 67 and also f iled the revised return. I am of the considered view that the claim of the assessee towards withholding taxes paid in Tanzania is to be given against

Shivananda Patil, Jalpaiguri vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 30/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 30 To 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 To 2022-23 Shivananda Patil Adit, Cpc, Bengaluru C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Beipp9978P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2020-21 To 2022-23. 2. As The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Identical, For The Sake Of Convenience They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Common Issue Involved In These Appeals That Arises For Our Adjudication Is In Respect Of Denial Of Relief Claimed U/S 90 Of The Act On Account Of Delay In Furnishing Of Form 67 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Probhash Roy, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 249(2)Section 250Section 90

assessee filed Form 6 I.T.A. No. 30 to 32/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 to 2022-23 Shivananda Patil 67 on 28. 09. 2018 alongwith revised return. Under these given facts and circumstances, where the assessee filed the original return on 06.07.2017 when there was no mechanism for filing Form ... expiry of the due date prescribed under section 139( 4) of the Act, the assessee furnished Form 67 and also f iled the revised return. I am of the considered view that the claim of the assessee towards withholding taxes paid in Tanzania is to be given against