← 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

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Karnataka State Industrial Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 788/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year :2009-10 Ito, Vs. M/S. Karnataka State Industrial Co-Operative Ward – 3(1), Bank Ltd., Bengaluru. No.11, Bull Temple Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru – 560 004. Pan : Aaaat 3503 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Pratibha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 28.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 07.02.2014 Of Cit(A)-Ii, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. This Appeal Was Dismissed By This Tribunal By Order Dated 14.01.2016 On The Ground That The Tax Effect Involved In The Appeal Was Less Than Rs.10 Lakhs & By Following The Cbdt Circular No.21/2015 Laying Down The Monetary Limit For Filing The Appeals By The Department. The Revenue Filed Appeal Before Hon’Ble High Court In Ita No.502/2016 & The Hon’Ble High Court In Order Dated 27.01.2021 Held That The Tax Effect In The Appeal Of The Department Was More Than Rs.10 Lakhs & Therefore The Tribunal Should Decide The Appeal Of The Revenue On Merits. Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 36

fact that these claims were made by the assessee in a revised computation of loss submitted during assessment proceedings but not through a revised return. Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Goetze(India) Ltd.(No. 1761 of 2006) dtd. 24.03.2006(Taxman-Vo1.157 (2006) that any such ... claims of deductions made other than by filing the revised returns are not allowable. The CIT(A) has erred in not applying this judgment while granting relief. 3) The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the order of the Hon'ble High Cot rt of Karnataka consequent to which wage