← 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

Strides Arcolab Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(3)

ITA 2877/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2877/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Strides Shasun Limited Dcit Cir. 15(3)(2) (Formerly Known As R. No. 451, 4Th Floor, Strides Arcolab Limited) बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 201, Devavrata, Sector 17, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs8104P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwala/ Shri Ketan Ved /Shri Ninad Patade, Ld. Ars प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.01.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) In 2

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala/ ShriFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, Ld. DR
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153Section 234BSection 234DSection 30Section 35Section 40A(2)(b)

which the income was first assessable; or (b) one year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under sub-section

Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax, Rajahmahendravaram vs. Andhra Paper Limited, Rajahmahendravaram

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 189/VIZ/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 162/Viz/2022 & 189/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Andhra Paper Limited Tax, Circle-1, (M/S. International Paper Rajamahendravaram. Appm Ltd), Sri Ram Nagar, Rajamahendravaram. Pan: Aact 8849 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) Co Nos: 22 & 23/Viz/2022 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 162/Viz/2022 & 189/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Andhra Paper Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (M/S. International Paper Appm Income Tax, Circle-1, Ltd), Rajamahendravaram. Sri Ram Nagar, Rajamahendravaram. Pan: Aact 8849 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri K. Chakrapani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri K. ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35D

filed its return of income for the AY 2012-13 admitting a total income of Rs. NIL, on 29/09/2012. Further, the assessee filed the revised return of income on 21/11/2013 declaring NIL income. Subsequently, the case has been taken up for scrutiny under CASS with a reason to examine “Large

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajamahendravaram vs. Andhra Paper Limited, Rajamahendravaram

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 162/VIZ/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 162/Viz/2022 & 189/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. M/S. Andhra Paper Limited Tax, Circle-1, (M/S. International Paper Rajamahendravaram. Appm Ltd), Sri Ram Nagar, Rajamahendravaram. Pan: Aact 8849 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) Co Nos: 22 & 23/Viz/2022 (In आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. Nos. 162/Viz/2022 & 189/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14) M/S. Andhra Paper Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (M/S. International Paper Appm Income Tax, Circle-1, Ltd), Rajamahendravaram. Sri Ram Nagar, Rajamahendravaram. Pan: Aact 8849 D (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Assessee By : Sri K. Chakrapani ""याथ"क"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Sri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri K. ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 35D

filed its return of income for the AY 2012-13 admitting a total income of Rs. NIL, on 29/09/2012. Further, the assessee filed the revised return of income on 21/11/2013 declaring NIL income. Subsequently, the case has been taken up for scrutiny under CASS with a reason to examine “Large

Sanjay Sharma, Greater Noida vs. ACIT, Noida

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

ITA 741/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Sanjay Sharma, Vs Acit, Flat 4063, Ats Paradiso, Noida. Sec-Chi-04, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201308. Pan-Amkps9185L Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Ca Respondent By Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi Dated 23.12.2021. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Ground Of Appeal:- 1. “In The Instant Case The Appellant Assessee While Submitting The Income Tax Return For The Financial Year Ended On 31-03-2012 (Relevant To The Asst. Year 2012-13) Inadvertently Forgotten To Submit The Details For Claiming Exemption U/S. 54 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Did Not Mentioned The Details Of Sale Of Residential House Property & Utilization Of Long-Term Capital Gain Arising Out Of Sale Of Residential House Property In The Purchase Of Another/New Residential House Property. Consequently, Income Demand Of Rs. 5,61,107/- Was Raised Against The Appellant Assessee Followed By The Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

furnished the details of capital gain on sale of Agriculture Land in his original return and during the assessment he has filed revised return with the details of capital gain. The assessee, however, did not claim exemption u/s. 54B of the Act, whether in the original or in the revised ... forth by the revenue is that as the petitioner did not rely upon the purchase of agricultural land, whether in his original or in revised return, the Commissioner has rightly refused to exercise power under Section 264 of the Act. As we have already held that power under Section

Greentech Environ Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 708/KOL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.708/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Greentech Environ Management Pvt. Ltd............................……...…..…Appellant 847/A, Block-A, Lake Town, Kolkata-700089. [Pan: Aaecg1536G] Vs. Adit, Cpc, Bangalore ........................................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anuj Musaddi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 25, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24 , 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.10.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Sole Grievance Raised By The Assessee, In This Appeal, Is Relating To The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act. 3. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That The Assessee Due To Some Inadvertent Error Could Not Make The Claim Of Section 80Ia Deduction In The Original Return Of Income. However, Later On, The Return Was Revised & The Claim Of Deduction U/S 80Ia Of The Act Was Made. However, The Lower Authorities Rejected The Claim Of The Assessee On The

Section 250Section 80I

original return of income. The ld. counsel has submitted that the Assessing Officer has processed only the original return of income and the revised return has not been considered. He has further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Winro Commercial (India ... cured at a subsequent stage namely at the stage of filing the return or even in the course of assessment proceedings. 5. Admittedly, the revised return was filed by the assessee within the time prescribed. We, therefore, do not find justification on the part of the lower authorities in rejecting

Jakhau Salt Company P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 367/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.367/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S. Jakhau Salt Co. P. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner – No.2, North Crescent Road, Of Income Tax, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai. [Pan:Aaacw 0867 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.01.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2023

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

deduction from the business income. The Assessee did not claim the write off in their first return of income but claimed it in the revised return. 10. During original assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer in the notice u/s 142(1) dated 5.10.2019 and 28.11.2019, inter alia, wanted the assessee ... particulars and the reason for filing revised return. The main reason for filing of the revised return was the claim of the write off of business investment. In response to the query raised under Notice u/s 142(1) dated 5.10.2019 the Appellant in their reply dated 27.11.1019 had explained