← 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

Polycab India Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 5 (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6275/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalepolycab India Ltd., Vs. Acit – Cc (5)(2) 1St Floor Polycab House, Air India Building 771 Pandit Satwalekar Nariman Point, Marg, Mahim West, Mumbai. Mumbai – 400016. Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp6474E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Priyanka S Respondent By : Shri Manpreet Duggal, Dr Date Of Hearing 05.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 11.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -53 Mumbai, Passed U/S.143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka SFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

income electronically for the A.Y 2016-17 on 30.11.2016 with a total income of Rs. 250,15,50,545/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 07.03.2017 disclosing a total income of Rs. 231,23,63,832/- and the return of income was processed ... revised computation of income were the assessee has relied on the judicial decisions. Whereas, the A.O observes that the assessee has to file a revised return of income for such claim and the assessee in claiming the deduction based on the judicial decisions. In respect of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Amazia Developers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 5671/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5671/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5672/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-1(1)(1) M/S Amazia Developers Private Ltd. 579, 5Th Floor Unit No.116, 1St Floor बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Rehab Building No.4, Akruti Annexe Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Road No.7,Marol Midc Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan No. : Aahca-6934-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Ms. Ira Bahl – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 06/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 06/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Ira Bahl – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

stated to be engaged as a property developer. The original assessment for the year was already completed u/s 143(3) on 29/12/2011 accepting revised returned loss of Rs.704.56 Lacs. 3.2 However, the case was reopened due to assessment order for AY 2010-11 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 wherein

K Raheja Corp P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 7463/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.7463/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) K. Raheja Corp. Private Ltd. Dcit–Cc-4(2) Raheja Tower Mumbai. बिाम/ Plot No.C-30, G Block Vs. Opp. Sidbi, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-0522-B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala (Ld. Sr. Counsel) & Ms. Aarati Sathe (Ld. Ar) Revenue By : Shri Jayant Jhaveri-Ld.Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/03/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2012-13 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-52/It/Dc-Cc-4(2)/300/2015-16 Dated 30/09/2016 On Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala (Ld. SrFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri-Ld.CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

depreciation claim during assessment proceedings, however, the same has been denied by Ld. AO since new claim could be made only by filing the revised return of income. 4. Disallowance u/s 14A 4.1 Since the assessee had opening and closing investments in shares for Rs.258.39 Crores & Rs.441.38 Crores respectively