← 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

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Arunachalam Manickavel, Guntur

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 18/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.18/Viz/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Income Tax Prop. M/S Bharathi Soap Works Central Circle-1 First Line, Indira Nagar Guntur Guntur [Pan : Acfpa3107K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Co No.25/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.18/Viz/2021) (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Sri Arunachalam Manickavel Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. M/S Bharathi Soap Works Income Tax First Line, Indira Nagar Central Circle-1 Guntur Guntur [Pan : Acfpa3107K] अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Mn Murthy Naik, Cit, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2022 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [For Short, “Cit(A)”]

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 245CSection 245DSection 245D(1)Section 3Section 4

No.18/Viz/2021 and CO No.25/Viz/2021, A.Y.2017-18 Sri Arunachalam Manickavel, Guntur 245C before the Hon’ble ITSC, Chennai on 13.11.2018. Since the assessee could not file revised return online, the AO made addition of Rs.2.60 crores outside the books of account from real estate business as admitted by the assessee ... assessee also admitted unaccounted income of Rs.3.65 crores for the A.Y.2015-16 and Rs.3.70 crores for the A.Y.2016-17 and stated that the copies of the revised returns have been filed. The Ld.AR also relied on the decision of DCIT Vs M/s Bharathi Consumer Care Products Pvt Ltd. by Hon’ble ITAT

Pab Organics Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2648/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2012-13 Pab Organics P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(2) 904-905, Atlantis Heights Vs Vadodra. Dr.Vikram Sarabhai Marg Wadi Wadi Vadodara 390 023. Pan: Aabcp 8169 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Ki. Parikh, Ca Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16 /03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 25.07.2016 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-2, Vadodara [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cab/2/039/15-16 Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Mainly Two Issues, Viz. Disallowance Of Maintenance Expenditure To Plant & Machinery & Disallowance Of Foreign Travelling Expenses. These Issues Reflected In The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Follows: 2

For Appellant: Shri D.KI. Parikh, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)

organic and inorganic chemicals. Assessee has efiled its return of income on 10.9.2012 declaring total income at Rs.NIL, and thereafter assessee filed a revised return on 18.9.2012 declaring total income at same figure i.e. Rs.NIL. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment by issuance of notice under

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

ITA 858/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Danesh Bafna &For Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 37(1)

been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that claims of deduction before AO can be allowed to be made by filing a revised return. The appellant had opportunity to do so during the original assessment proceedings. Even otherwise, a legal ground could have been raised before appellate authorities, which ... cannot be interpreted to be a further innings for the A and/ or assessee beyond provisions of Sections 139 (return of income), 139(5) (revised return of income), 147 (income escaping assessment) and 263 (revision of orders) of the Act. The search assessment proceedings in cases where original assessments have