← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 87/PUN/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.86 & 87/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., 26/27, Mumbai – Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aaacf2637D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri J. G. Pendse Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.10.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.86/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri J. G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) were issued to the respondent-assessee. In response to the said notices, the respondent-assessee filed revised return of income declaring income of Rs.1,74,52,730/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune vs. M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 86/PUN/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.86 & 87/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., 26/27, Mumbai – Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aaacf2637D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri J. G. Pendse Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.10.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.86/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri J. G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) were issued to the respondent-assessee. In response to the said notices, the respondent-assessee filed revised return of income declaring income of Rs.1,74,52,730/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income