← 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

Smt. Kusumben Amritlal Sanghavi, Jamnagar vs. The DCIT, Circle, Jamnagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 194/RJT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 194/Rjt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Smt. Kusumben Amritlal Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Sanghavi Income Tax Vs. C/O. Kantilal & Circle-2, Jamnagar - Brothers, Grain Market, 361008 Jamnagar - 361001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afhps5412C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri D. S. Varia, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr.D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 06/04/2023 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 30/05/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamnagar (‘The Cit(A)’), Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 30.06.2017 Passed By The Learned Dcit, Circle-2, Jamnagar Under Section

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Varia, A.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54F

return of income on 05.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.59,37,270/-, which was subsequently revised at Rs.48,83,290/- by filing the revised return of income on 31.10.2015. Such revised return of income was filed to claim deduction of Rs.10,53,975/- under Section ... residential house on 07.10.2015 for a sum of Rs.12 Lakhs and claimed deduction 10,53,975/- under Section 54F of the Act by filing revised return of income. Upon selection of the case under scrutiny, the assessment was finalized under Section 143(3) of the Act in terms

Dy. CIT-5(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Limited (Earlier Know As Vodafone India Limited Which Now Stands Merged With Idea Cellular Limited (Icl) and Consequently Known As Vodafone Idea Limited), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 2429/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M Balaganeshvk-Vk-La- 2429@Eaqcbz@2019 ¼Fu-Oa- 2009&10½ Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 5Th Floor, Room No.525, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Mumbai-400 020 Cuke Vs. M/S Vodafone Idea Limited 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Pandurang Budhakar Marg, Worli Mumbai-400 030 ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Pan No. Aaach5332B Izr;K{Ksi-La- 32@Eaqcbz@2020 ¼Fu-Oa- 2009&10½ Co No.32/Mum/2020 (A.Y.2009-10) M/S Vodafone Idea Limited 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Pandurang Budhakar Marg, Worli Mumbai-400 030 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aaach5332B Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax 5Th Floor, Room No.525, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 020

For Appellant: S/Shri P. J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate with Ketan Ved izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 154

filed its original return of income for the impugned assessment year on 30.09.2009 declaring taxable income of Rs.5,09,100/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 31.09.2011 declaring taxable income of Rs.8,44,31,495/-. The final assessment order was passed