← 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

Finquest Financial Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 734/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.733/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.734/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Finquest Financial Solutions बिधम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4), Vs. 602, 6Th Floor, Boston Room No.1915, 19Th House, Suren Road, Floor, Air India Building, Andheri (E), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 021 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf8117G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. G. Ginde & Kumar Kale Revenue By: Shri Ankush Kapoor, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 16.01.2023, For Ay. 2018-19 & Ay. 2017-18 Respectively. 2. As Per The Request Of The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ar) Of The Assessee, First Of All, We Will Adjudicate The Appeal For Ay. 2018-19 First. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Does Not Press Ground No. 1 Which Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.19,25,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao), Being Disallowance Of Fees Paid To The Roc. Therefore, This Ground Of Appeal Of Assessee Stands Dismissed. (Ay. 2018-19 & Ay. 2017-18) Finquest Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri V. G. Ginde & Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

noted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had taken a new plea without making a claim neither in the Return of Income nor Revised Return of Income. This new plea raised by the assessee by way of letter before him was regarding an addition made ... However, the AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee can make a new claim only by filing a revised return and not by way of filing a letter. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to dismiss

Finquest Financial Solutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AY

ITA 733/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.733/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.734/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Finquest Financial Solutions बिधम/ Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Cc-3(4), Vs. 602, 6Th Floor, Boston Room No.1915, 19Th House, Suren Road, Floor, Air India Building, Andheri (E), Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 093 Mumbai-400 021 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf8117G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. G. Ginde & Kumar Kale Revenue By: Shri Ankush Kapoor, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 16.01.2023, For Ay. 2018-19 & Ay. 2017-18 Respectively. 2. As Per The Request Of The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ar) Of The Assessee, First Of All, We Will Adjudicate The Appeal For Ay. 2018-19 First. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Does Not Press Ground No. 1 Which Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.19,25,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer (Ao), Being Disallowance Of Fees Paid To The Roc. Therefore, This Ground Of Appeal Of Assessee Stands Dismissed. (Ay. 2018-19 & Ay. 2017-18) Finquest Financial Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri V. G. Ginde & Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

noted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee had taken a new plea without making a claim neither in the Return of Income nor Revised Return of Income. This new plea raised by the assessee by way of letter before him was regarding an addition made ... However, the AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the assessee can make a new claim only by filing a revised return and not by way of filing a letter. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to dismiss

Jt. CIT (Ods) - CC -1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

rest of the deduction of Demerger Exp. (1/5th each year) from second / third year onwards….” 16. Further, Ld.AR brought to our notice the revised return of income filed by the assessee wherein the claim of deduction u/s. 35DD of the Act was revised. The assessee had again filed notes ... Officer who has passed the order u/s 153C of the Act, wherein the assessee had again submitted the copies of notes to original and revised return of income. It is clear from the above that allegation of the Ld.CIT(A) has no legs to stand. Even otherwise, if there

Ultra Tech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

rest of the deduction of Demerger Exp. (1/5th each year) from second / third year onwards….” 16. Further, Ld.AR brought to our notice the revised return of income filed by the assessee wherein the claim of deduction u/s. 35DD of the Act was revised. The assessee had again filed notes ... Officer who has passed the order u/s 153C of the Act, wherein the assessee had again submitted the copies of notes to original and revised return of income. It is clear from the above that allegation of the Ld.CIT(A) has no legs to stand. Even otherwise, if there

DCIT Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1789/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

rest of the deduction of Demerger Exp. (1/5th each year) from second / third year onwards….” 16. Further, Ld.AR brought to our notice the revised return of income filed by the assessee wherein the claim of deduction u/s. 35DD of the Act was revised. The assessee had again filed notes ... Officer who has passed the order u/s 153C of the Act, wherein the assessee had again submitted the copies of notes to original and revised return of income. It is clear from the above that allegation of the Ld.CIT(A) has no legs to stand. Even otherwise, if there

M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent Cir-1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1466/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Bledeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Central Circle- 1(4) Ahura Centre, B- Wing Room No. 902, 9Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) & M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle- 1(4) [Acit, Cc] Room. No 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, B-Wing, 2Nd Floor Pratishtha Bhavan Mahakali Caves Road Old C.G.O. Bldg, (Annexe) Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Maharishi Karve Road Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 35D

rest of the deduction of Demerger Exp. (1/5th each year) from second / third year onwards….” 16. Further, Ld.AR brought to our notice the revised return of income filed by the assessee wherein the claim of deduction u/s. 35DD of the Act was revised. The assessee had again filed notes ... Officer who has passed the order u/s 153C of the Act, wherein the assessee had again submitted the copies of notes to original and revised return of income. It is clear from the above that allegation of the Ld.CIT(A) has no legs to stand. Even otherwise, if there