← 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

Shivam Residential Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd., Valsad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 396/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shivam Residential Construction Principal Commissioner Of (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Civil Income-Tax-Valsad, Palak Vs. Hospital Road, Nanakwada, Valsad Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapcs 3137 G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Milin Mehta, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

work. It filed its return of income for AY 2013- 14 on 04.10.2013 declaring income of Rs.25,74,560/-. Thereafter, the assessee has filed revised return of income on 19.02.2014 declaring total income of Rs.2,25,74,560/-. The said return of income was filed after voluntary disallowance ... Rs.2 crores made in the original return of income by debiting the P & L account but adding back the same amount in the revised return of income filed on 19.02.2014 on the ground that tax at source had not been deducted i.e. invoking the provisions of section

Harbauer(India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Asstt. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 512/KOL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.512/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Harbauer (India) Pvt. Ltd.....................................................................…..…Appellant 16 Acropolis Mall, 1858 7Th Floor, Rajdanga Main Road, Kasba, Kolkata-700107. [Pan: Aabch3424M] Vs. Adit, Cpc...........................…..….............................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anuj Musaddi, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 23, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 08, 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 22.09.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Upholding The Additions/ Disallowances Made By The Learned Adit-Cpc In The Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act'). 1(B). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Not Providing Opportunity Of Personal Hearing/ Video Conferencing Before Upholding The Additions/ 1(B) Disallowances Made By The Learned Adit-Cpc In The Order Under Section

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 80

filled properly without appreciating the facts that the Assessee has correctly filled all the details mentioned by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in its revised return of income. 2(b) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) grossly erred in upholding ... merely on the basis of procedural error even after accepting the eligibility of the Assessee to claim deduction in its revised return of income. 3(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the addition