← 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

Late Shri Harshad S. Mehta (Through L/H.Smt.Jyoti H Mehta), Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 23, (Now DCIT Central Range-4 (1)), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6615/MUM/2018[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2021AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1990-91 Late Shri Harshad S. Dy. Cit, Mehta, Central Circle -23 [Now (Through L/H Smt. Jyoti Dcit, Central Range- H. Mehta), 4(1)], Vs. 32, Madhuli Apartment, Room No.1916, Dr. A.B. Road, Air India Building, Worli, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Abapm1848F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1990-91 Dy. Cit, Late Shri Harshad S. Central Circle-4(1), Mehta, Central Range-4, (Through L/H Smt. Jyoti Room No.1916, H. Mehta), Vs. 19Th Floor, 32, Madhuli Apartment, Air India Building, Dr. A.B. Road, Nariman Point, Worli, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai – 400 018 Pan: Abapm1848F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 1990-91 Late Shri Harshad S. Dy. Cit, Mehta, Central Circle -4(1), (Through L/H Smt. Jyoti Air India Building, H. Mehta), Nariman Point, Vs. 32, Madhuli Apartment, Mumbai - 400021 Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Pan: Abapm1848F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

same was not accompanied with the balance sheet and P&L account and therefore was treated as invalid. Therefore, the assessee filed the revised return of income declaring an income of Rs.31,94,650/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section

T vs. Logistics Services Ltd., Madurai

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

ITA 585/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 585/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 M/S. Tvs Supply Chain Solutions The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, (Formerly Known As Tvs Vs. Income Tax, Logistics Services Limited), Corporate Circle 2, 7B, West Veli Street, Tvs Building, Madurai 625 002. Madurai 625 001. [Pan:Aacct1412E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Viswanathan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Madurai, Dated 28.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri M. Viswanathan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

original return of income wherein the interest from mutual fund amounting to ₹.43,28,917/- has been offered to tax. Subsequently, while filing the revised return the assessee, by oversight claimed it as exempt income. It was further submission that when the assessee noticed the error crept ... revised return, the time has already passed by for revising it for second time, therefore, in the 1st appearance for assessment, the assessee has submitted a comparative income computation between the original and revised return and also what was being offered before assessment by virtue of the fact that

Nalini R. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7117/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalems. Nalini R. Mehta Vs. Acit – 19(2) 46, Everest Bldg, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Peddar Road, 6Th Floor, Road, Mumbai – Bhind Doctor House, 400007. Mumbai – 400 026. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpm4161F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri K.C Selvamani, Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.C Selvamani, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

view that the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted and observed that the assessee has not filed the revised return of income and hence the claim is rejected and passed the order U/sec154 of the Act dated 12-10- 2017. 3. Aggrieved by the order u/sec154 ... declined to accept the claim on the ground that the assessee has not made the Ms. Nalini R. Mehta., Mumbai claim in the revised return of income and rejected the application u/sec 154 of the Act. Therefore, we considering the overall facts and circumstances are of the opinion that