← 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

Pearls Creative Adsolutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed in limine

ITA 3767/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 Pearls Creative Adsolutions Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd., 705, 7Th Floor, Circle – 19 (2) Manjusha Building, Nehru New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan No.Aafcp0010M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

Section 143Section 144

case is that the assessee company has filed the Income Tax return on 29.09.2012 declaring income of Rs.3,22,06,950/-. The revised return of income was also filed and the case has been selected for the scrutiny assessment under CASS. The notice

Sunil Ramchandra Naware, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 99/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.99/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sunil Ramchandra Naware, Vs. Ito, Nashik. Row House No.6, Amrut Pushpa, Ambad Link Road, Uttam Nagar- 422010. Pan : Aappn5706R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.11.2022 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs. 202118/- On The Ground That The Assessee Had Under Reported His Income By Rs. 4,34,830/- In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law. 2. The Learned Cit Failed To Appreciate That Before The A.O., The Assessee Had Duly Explained That Under Reporting Of Income In His Case

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

determining the income at Rs.7,17,920/- as against the income of Rs.3,11,010/- admitted in revised return. Subsequently, vide order dated 30-12-2021 the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.66,930/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealing the particulars of income of Rs.4

Kovilpatti Nadar Uravin Murai Sangam, Thoothukudi vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

ITA 579/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.211/Chny/2024 (िनधा:रणवष: / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.579/Chny/2024 (िनधा:रणवष: / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kovilpatti Nadar Uravin Murai Sangam Acit (Exemptions), बनाम/ Pathirakalliamman Koil Street, Coimbatore. Vs. Kovilpatti-628 501. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaatk-8644-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S.Easwar (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Easwar (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154

oversight and the assessee was entitled for exemption as applicable to a charitable trust. However, in the absence of revised return, such claim was denied. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of condonation of delay of 370 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further

Kovilpatti Nadar Uravin Murvin Sangam, Thoothukudi vs. ACIT, Exemptions, Coimbatore

ITA 211/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.211/Chny/2024 (िनधा:रणवष: / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.579/Chny/2024 (िनधा:रणवष: / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kovilpatti Nadar Uravin Murai Sangam Acit (Exemptions), बनाम/ Pathirakalliamman Koil Street, Coimbatore. Vs. Kovilpatti-628 501. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaatk-8644-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S.Easwar (Jcit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-05-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-05-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Easwar (JCIT)-Ld. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154

oversight and the assessee was entitled for exemption as applicable to a charitable trust. However, in the absence of revised return, such claim was denied. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of condonation of delay of 370 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further

Compagnie Ibm France, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 546/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

peace. Hence, although the taxes were not paid during the filing of return u/s 139, the payments were made while filing the revised return u/s 148 and/or during the assessment proceedings. The ld. A.Rs submitted that imposition of penalty is not automatic and the tax payment made by the assessee ... assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

Ibm Corporation, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 544/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

peace. Hence, although the taxes were not paid during the filing of return u/s 139, the payments were made while filing the revised return u/s 148 and/or during the assessment proceedings. The ld. A.Rs submitted that imposition of penalty is not automatic and the tax payment made by the assessee ... assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

Ibm Canada Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 543/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

peace. Hence, although the taxes were not paid during the filing of return u/s 139, the payments were made while filing the revised return u/s 148 and/or during the assessment proceedings. The ld. A.Rs submitted that imposition of penalty is not automatic and the tax payment made by the assessee ... assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

Ibm United Kingdom Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 542/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

peace. Hence, although the taxes were not paid during the filing of return u/s 139, the payments were made while filing the revised return u/s 148 and/or during the assessment proceedings. The ld. A.Rs submitted that imposition of penalty is not automatic and the tax payment made by the assessee ... assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

Ibm Australia Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 541/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

peace. Hence, although the taxes were not paid during the filing of return u/s 139, the payments were made while filing the revised return u/s 148 and/or during the assessment proceedings. The ld. A.Rs submitted that imposition of penalty is not automatic and the tax payment made by the assessee ... assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

Ibm Corporation, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 499/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

peace. Hence, although the taxes were not paid during the filing of return u/s 139, the payments were made while filing the revised return u/s 148 and/or during the assessment proceedings. The ld. A.Rs submitted that imposition of penalty is not automatic and the tax payment made by the assessee ... assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

Ibm United Kingdom Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 497/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

peace. Hence, although the taxes were not paid during the filing of return u/s 139, the payments were made while filing the revised return u/s 148 and/or during the assessment proceedings. The ld. A.Rs submitted that imposition of penalty is not automatic and the tax payment made by the assessee ... assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

Ibm Israel Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 496/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

peace. Hence, although the taxes were not paid during the filing of return u/s 139, the payments were made while filing the revised return u/s 148 and/or during the assessment proceedings. The ld. A.Rs submitted that imposition of penalty is not automatic and the tax payment made by the assessee ... assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

Ibm Israel Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 495/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

peace. Hence, although the taxes were not paid during the filing of return u/s 139, the payments were made while filing the revised return u/s 148 and/or during the assessment proceedings. The ld. A.Rs submitted that imposition of penalty is not automatic and the tax payment made by the assessee ... assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

Ibm Japan Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 492/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

peace. Hence, although the taxes were not paid during the filing of return u/s 139, the payments were made while filing the revised return u/s 148 and/or during the assessment proceedings. The ld. A.Rs submitted that imposition of penalty is not automatic and the tax payment made by the assessee ... assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

Ibm Canada Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 491/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271(1)(c)

peace. Hence, although the taxes were not paid during the filing of return u/s 139, the payments were made while filing the revised return u/s 148 and/or during the assessment proceedings. The ld. A.Rs submitted that imposition of penalty is not automatic and the tax payment made by the assessee ... assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

Ibm Canada Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation, Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 489/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

peace. Hence, although the taxes were not paid during the filing of return u/s 139, the payments were made while filing the revised return u/s 148 and/or during the assessment proceedings. The ld. A.Rs submitted that imposition of penalty is not automatic and the tax payment made by the assessee ... assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

Ibm Australia Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 488/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

peace. Hence, although the taxes were not paid during the filing of return u/s 139, the payments were made while filing the revised return u/s 148 and/or during the assessment proceedings. The ld. A.Rs submitted that imposition of penalty is not automatic and the tax payment made by the assessee ... assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

Ibm Australia Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International Taxation-Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 487/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos.490 & 491/Bang/2024

Section 271

peace. Hence, although the taxes were not paid during the filing of return u/s 139, the payments were made while filing the revised return u/s 148 and/or during the assessment proceedings. The ld. A.Rs submitted that imposition of penalty is not automatic and the tax payment made by the assessee ... assessee in the original return, a notice under section 148 of the Act was issued. Pursuant to the said notice, the assessee filed the revised return of income showing higher income. The said return of income was accompanied by a note in which the assessee submitted that he surrendered

Appsemantics Infotech Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1097/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. DR
Section 154

submitted that if the assessee had made certain mistake in the Income Tax Return, the same could have been rectified only by filing a revised return and that there was no mistake apparent from record, which could have been rectified

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S, Sundaram Finance Ltd., Chennai

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 31/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 176

stated to be engaged as non-banking finance company as well as engaged in the business of hire purchasing and leasing. The assessee filed revised return of income for AY 2012-13 on 29.03.2013 declaring total income of Rs.491.67 crores which was processed u/s 143(1) on 13.06.2014. The case