← 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

ACIT (OSD) Corporate Range 1, Chennai vs. Dorma India P. Ltd., Chennai

In the result appeal filed by Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1667/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1667/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Dorma India P. Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. No. 14, Pattullous Road, Royapettah, Corporate Range I, Chennai 600 002. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacd3980D] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. R. Anita, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Lakshmi, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai Dated 22.03.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground In This Appeal Raised By The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Depreciation By Relying On The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of M/S. Smifs Securities Ltd. & The Itat’S Decision In The Case Of R.G. Keswani & Failed To Appreciate That Following The Principle Of Ejusdem Generis, The Goodwill Accounted As Balancing Factor Or Non-Compete Fee Is Not A Depreciable Asset In Nature Of Any Other Business Or Commercial Rights’

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anita, JCITFor Respondent: Ms. Lakshmi, Advocate
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

depreciation while computing income. Thus even if assessee has not filed claim of depreciation in return of income filed with Revenue as well in revised return of income filed with Revenue, but has made claim during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee will be entitled for depreciation u/s.32

Late Shashiraj Kapoor (Through Legal Representive Kunal Kapoor), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 16 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 5913/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5913/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिधम/ Late Shashiraj Kapoor Acit Circle 16(1) (Through Legal 439, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Representative Kunal Mumbai-400020. Kapoor) 6, Prithvi Theatre, Janta Kutir Juhu Church Road, Juhu, Mumbai-400049. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpk0578J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Mr. Firoz Andhyarujina Revenue By: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 02.08.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2013-14 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 2. Ita. No5913/M/2018 A.Y. 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Firoz AndhyarujinaFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

merits of the case, the penalty has been levied by AO on the basis of this fact that the assessee has filed the revised return of income by showing the additional income and on account of disallowance of claim u/s 54 of the I. T. Act in connection with ... Juhu flats. In the revised return of income, there is no concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of any kind. Disallowance of claim u/s 54 of the I. T. Act, nowhere attract the penalty in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

Income Tax Officer-23(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Indian Corporate Loan Securities Trust 2008 Series 14, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue's appeal for A

ITA 4789/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust 2008 Matru Mandir Series 14 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block 3Rd Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16786P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Iii Matru Mandir 2009 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat17440L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) The Ito-23(1)(2) Vs. M/S. Indian Corporate Loan Room No.18 Securities Trust Series Matru Mandir 2008 Series 36 Grant Road Il & Fs Financial Centre Mumbai – 400 007 Plot No.C-22, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaat16925L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Appeals In Ita No.4789/Mum/2017, 4791/Mum/2017 & 4794/Mum/2017 For A.Y.2010-11 Arise Out Of The Order By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 32/It-604/23(1)(2)/2015-16, Cit(A)-32/It-48/19(3)(2)/2012-13 & Cit(A)-32/It-483/Ito-19(3)(4)/12-13 Respectively Dated 24/04/2017 (Ld. Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 26/02/2016, 31/10/2012 Respectively By The Ld. Income Tax Officer – 23(1)(2) & 19(3)(2) Respectively, Mumbai (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao).

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 148Section 161Section 161(1)Section 61

transfer" includes any settlement, trust, covenant, agreement or arrangement. The contention of the Assessee as can be seen from the reasons for filing revised return was that the monies given by the beneficiaries to the Trust was a revocable transfer and therefore any income arising from such revocable transfer will