← 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

DCIT, Corporate Cirlce - 3 (2), Chennai vs. M/S. Venture Lighting India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 704/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.704/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Venture Lighting India Ltd., Income Tax, Plot No. A-30, D-5, Phase Ii, Corporate Circle – 3(2), Zone-B, Mepz, Tambaram, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 045. [Pan: Aaaca9284H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai, Dated 09.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 78 Days In Filing The Appeal Due To Outbreak Of Covid-19 Pandemic & Hence, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned & Admitted The Appeal For 2

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234C

assessment year 2008-09 originally on 23.09.2008 with a returned income of ₹.3,85,36,870/-. The assessee has also filed a revised return of income on 24.09.2009 admitting an income of ₹.11,33,84,760/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice ... assessee company has not paid the self assessment tax payable as per the original return of income for the assessment year till the revised return of income was filed. The assessee company has also raised the provision for expenses and bad debt in the balance sheet and the same

Income Tax Officer -31(2) (1), Mumbai vs. Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd Gratuity Fund, Mumbai

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

ITA 1555/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1555/मुं/2022 ("न.व. 2018-19) The Income-Tax Officer -31(2)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Room No.615, 6Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Johnson & Johnson Private Limited. Gratuity Fund, 501, Arena Space, Off. Jvlr, Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400 060 Pan: Aaaaj-1600-Q .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Vranda U Matkarni ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri M.P.Lohia सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikash Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘ The Cit(A) ] Dated 28/12/2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Ms. Vranda U Matkarni Representing The Department Submitted That In The First Appellate Proceedings, The Cit(A) Allowed Assessee’S Claim Of 2 Deduction Of Rs.8.44 Crores. The Ld. Departmental Representative Submits That The Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Said Claim Was Not Made By The Assessee In The Return Of Income Or In The Revised Return Of Income. The Ld. Departmental Representative Further Pointed That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Admitting Fresh Claim Of The Assessee Without Making Enquries & Restored The Same To The Assessing Officer With A Direction To Verify The Same.

For Appellant: Ms. Vranda U MatkarniFor Respondent: Shri M.P.Lohia
Section 10(25)(iv)Section 143(1)Section 250

failed to appreciate the fact that the said claim was not made by the assessee in the return of income or in the revised return of income. The ld. Departmental Representative further pointed that the CIT(A) has erred in admitting fresh claim of the assessee without making enquries