← 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 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals, of the assessee and Revenue, are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3811/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3892/Mum/2011 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2007-08) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3789/Mum/2012 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2008-09) Bajaj Electricals Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of 45/47, Bombay Lite Income Tax, (Osd), 2(1), बनाम/ Building, Veer Nariman Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Road, Fort Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb2484Q आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4516/Mum/2011 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2007-08) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3811/Mum/2012 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2008-09) The Asst. Commissioner Of Bajaj Electricals Limited Income Tax, (Osd), 2(1), 45/47, Bombay Lite Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Veer Nariman Road, Fort Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb2484Q

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh
Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 14A

possible for assessee to provide documentary evidences to substantiate the transaction of commission paid to Nischal Corporate Securities Limited. The assessee in the revise return of income filed on 31.03.2009, suo moto disclosed the commission expenses as income amounting to ₹1,56,29,741/-. Subsequently, during the course of scrutiny ... relevant letter dated 29.12.2009, wherein the disclosure was made only with a condition that no panel proceedings will be initiated. The assessee also filed revised return of income on 19.12.2009. The AO has not honour the commitment made to the assessee and hence, the assessee challenged the disallowance of commission

Asst CIT 2(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals, of the assessee and Revenue, are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4516/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3892/Mum/2011 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2007-08) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3789/Mum/2012 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2008-09) Bajaj Electricals Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of 45/47, Bombay Lite Income Tax, (Osd), 2(1), बनाम/ Building, Veer Nariman Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Road, Fort Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb2484Q आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4516/Mum/2011 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2007-08) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3811/Mum/2012 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2008-09) The Asst. Commissioner Of Bajaj Electricals Limited Income Tax, (Osd), 2(1), 45/47, Bombay Lite Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Veer Nariman Road, Fort Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb2484Q

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh
Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 14A

possible for assessee to provide documentary evidences to substantiate the transaction of commission paid to Nischal Corporate Securities Limited. The assessee in the revise return of income filed on 31.03.2009, suo moto disclosed the commission expenses as income amounting to ₹1,56,29,741/-. Subsequently, during the course of scrutiny ... relevant letter dated 29.12.2009, wherein the disclosure was made only with a condition that no panel proceedings will be initiated. The assessee also filed revised return of income on 19.12.2009. The AO has not honour the commitment made to the assessee and hence, the assessee challenged the disallowance of commission

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals, of the assessee and Revenue, are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3892/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3892/Mum/2011 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2007-08) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3789/Mum/2012 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2008-09) Bajaj Electricals Limited The Asst. Commissioner Of 45/47, Bombay Lite Income Tax, (Osd), 2(1), बनाम/ Building, Veer Nariman Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Road, Fort Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb2484Q आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 4516/Mum/2011 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2007-08) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 3811/Mum/2012 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2008-09) The Asst. Commissioner Of Bajaj Electricals Limited Income Tax, (Osd), 2(1), 45/47, Bombay Lite Building, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Veer Nariman Road, Fort Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaacb2484Q

For Appellant: S/Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh
Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 14A

possible for assessee to provide documentary evidences to substantiate the transaction of commission paid to Nischal Corporate Securities Limited. The assessee in the revise return of income filed on 31.03.2009, suo moto disclosed the commission expenses as income amounting to ₹1,56,29,741/-. Subsequently, during the course of scrutiny ... relevant letter dated 29.12.2009, wherein the disclosure was made only with a condition that no panel proceedings will be initiated. The assessee also filed revised return of income on 19.12.2009. The AO has not honour the commitment made to the assessee and hence, the assessee challenged the disallowance of commission