← 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

M/S. Sgs Agro Farms Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 880/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.878, 879 & 880/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. Sgs Agro Farms Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 59, 1St Floor, 2Nd Street, Secretariat Income Tax, Colony, Kellys, Chennai 600 010. Corporate Circle 6(1), [Pan:Aalcs7389E] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 06.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16. 2. These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 58 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. By Referring To The Above Affidavit, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That There Is Reasonable Cause For The Delay & 2

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 28.09.2011 admitting total loss of ₹.4,72,94,651/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 29.09.2012 admitting loss of ₹.1,85,17,179/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under section

M/S Sgs Agro Farms Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 879/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.878, 879 & 880/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. Sgs Agro Farms Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 59, 1St Floor, 2Nd Street, Secretariat Income Tax, Colony, Kellys, Chennai 600 010. Corporate Circle 6(1), [Pan:Aalcs7389E] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 06.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16. 2. These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 58 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. By Referring To The Above Affidavit, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That There Is Reasonable Cause For The Delay & 2

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 28.09.2011 admitting total loss of ₹.4,72,94,651/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 29.09.2012 admitting loss of ₹.1,85,17,179/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under section

M/S Sgs Agro Farms Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 878/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha, G.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.878, 879 & 880/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16 M/S. Sgs Agro Farms Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 59, 1St Floor, 2Nd Street, Secretariat Income Tax, Colony, Kellys, Chennai 600 010. Corporate Circle 6(1), [Pan:Aalcs7389E] Chennai 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri I. Dinesh, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate But Identical Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, All Dated 06.04.2023 For The Assessment Years 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2015-16. 2. These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Delayed By 58 Days In Filing The Appeal, For Which, The Assessee Has Filed Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. By Referring To The Above Affidavit, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That There Is Reasonable Cause For The Delay & 2

For Appellant: Shri I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 28.09.2011 admitting total loss of ₹.4,72,94,651/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 29.09.2012 admitting loss of ₹.1,85,17,179/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice under section

Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 194/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 194/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ib, Corporate House, Indamara, Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aacca2881J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Bikram Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Dated 28.03.2023 For A.Y.2018-19. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax—Raipur-1 Has Erred In Holding The Assessment Order Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre (Neac) On 01.03.2021 As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue As The Order Was Passed Without Making Any Enquiry On The Issues Of Applicability Of Section 14A Of The I. T. Act, 1961. The Assessment Order Passed By The Neac Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Therefore The Order U/S 263 Passed By The Ld. Cit Is Unjustified, Unwarranted & Uncalled. 2. The Assessee Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 801ASection 80I

complete scrutiny assessment on the following issues: i. Claim of Any Other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP ii. Reduction of Income in Revised Return & Claim of Refund iii. Refund Claim iv. Duty Drawback v. Deduction Claimed for Industrial Undertaking u/s 801A /80IAB /80IAC /IB/IC/IBA/801D/801E/10A/10AA vi. ICDS Compliance ... Rs.146,66,64,660/-. The return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act accepting the returned income. Again, the assessee company revised return declaring income of Rs.143,24,43,070/- on 31.03.2019 after claiming deduction under chapter VIA of Rs.4,98,22,513/-. The case of the assessee

West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-13(1)., Kolkata

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

ITA 300/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 300/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Assistant Commissioner Of Income Development Corporation Limited Vs Tax, Circle-13(1), Kolkata Hidco Bhaban 35-1111, Major Arterial Road 3Rd Rotary, New Town Kolkata - 700156 [Pan : Aaacw4115F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R. Dutta, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 14/02/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That The Ld. Cit (Appeals) Has Erred Both In Fact & In Law In Upholding The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.45,31,06,825 To The Total Income Of The Appellant. 2. That The Order Dated 10 June2021 Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed & / Or Set Aside As The Same Proceeds On The Basis Of The Return Filed On The Basis Of Accounts Of The Appellant Under Gaap & Not On The Basis Of Accounts Converted Into Ind-As, As The Adoption Of Ind-As Became

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Dutta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

Rs.68,36,94,059/-. However, by the time the revised financial statements were prepared as per Ind AS, time limit to file the revised return expired. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer examined the financial statements based on GAAP and did not take note ... have only based their adjudication on the financial statement prepared as per GAAP. He further submitted that the assessee could not file a revised return because the financial statement as per Ind AS were prepared at a later stage and by that time the time limit to file the return