← 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.

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.

Pr. CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd.
109 Taxmann.com 93 · 2019 · High Court
77
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has the power under Section 254 to entertain a claim for deduction not made in the original return of income or a revised return filed before the Assessing Officer.

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, Sard- 1 (2) Thane, Thane vs. Mak Rubber Products, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5416/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5416/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito Ward-1(2) Thane बिधम/ Mak Rubber Products Room No.24, B-Wing, 6Th 301/306, B-Wing, Giriya Co. Vs. Floor, Ashar It Park, Road Op. Hsg. Society, Mahatma No. 16Z, Wagle Ind. Estate, Phule Road, Naupada, Thane (W)-400604. Thane-400601. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabfm8605N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Jothilakshmi Nayak (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Bhadresh K. Doshi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 05.07.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -03, Nasik [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh K. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Jothilakshmi Nayak (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271

appellant and the facts of the case. The AO has levied the penalty because the appellant had offered the said purchased by filing revised return. The AO is therefore of the opinion that the he has concealed particulars of income. On the other hand, the appellant has stated that ... materials are genuine for which payments are made by cheque. There were corresponding sales against the said purchases. The only reason for filing revised return was that the firm was closed and due to old age of partners it was not possible to produce the suppliers, therefore in order

Pabitra Banerjee, Jharsugudha vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jharsugudha

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 24/CTK/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.24/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Pabitra Banerjee, Vs. Ito Ward-1, Jharsuguda Prop. M/S Durga Enterprises, At-Gumadera, Po-Belpahar, Dist: Jharsuguda-768218 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Agfpb 3419 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Binod Agarwal, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri J.K.Lenka, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/02/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Sambalpur, Dated 17.10.2019 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Wholly Unjustified To Confirm Addition Of Rs.2,25,254/- Being The Provident Fund Amount Paid Via Tata Refractories Ltd. As Per Arrangement Between The Assessee, A Contractor Under The Principal Tata Refractory Ltd.. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate This Simple Business Practice & Ignoring All The Evidences Produced Confirmed The Addition Which Is Totally Illegal, Unjustified & Bad In Law & Should Be Totally Allowed In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.30,76,893/- Terming It As Non-Genuine Purchase Is The Result Of Non-Appreciation Of Facts & Law & Ignoring Evidence Produced On Wholly Wrong Premises, Which Is Wholly Unjustified, Illegal & Vitiated & Should Be Fully Deleted In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Binod Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

Durga Enterprises during the financial year 2009- 2010, which has also been placed at page No.18. Ld. Counsel submitted that total purchase as per revised return was Rs.1,40,22,080/- and this figure was verified by the Dy. Commissioner of Sales Tax Department, Government of Odisha. Ld. AR further ... vehemently pointed out that the CIT(A) in para 5.3.3 has wrongly mentioned that the certificate simply mentions that the purchases as per the revised returned are of Rs.1,40,22,080/-. No verification or inspection has been made by the sales tax department into the correctness of the said

Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-5(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 4136/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4136/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4137/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd. Dcit–Circle-5(3)(2) बनाम/ Room No.518, 5Th Floor 10-A, Bakhtawar Nariman Point Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4127-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4743/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4742/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit–Circle-5(3)(2) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd. Room No.518, 5Th Floor बनाम/ 10-A, Bakhtawar Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400021. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4127-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/01/2010 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 13/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115VSection 14Section 14ASection 14A(1)

Company Limited Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ltd. V/s CIT 284 ITR 323 which mandate the assessee to claim deduction by filing a revised return only. 3.1 Aggrieved, the assessee contested the action of Ld.AO before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 10/04/2017 which is common order ... considered as business income, the same was also rejected by observing that such claims could not be entertained except by way of revising return of income. M/s. Tolani Shipping Company Limited Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 3.4 The aforesaid adjudication by Ld. CIT(A) has given rise to cross