← 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

The Jt.CIT., (OSD)Circle-4, Surat vs. M/S. Surat Metlon Pvt.Ltd., Surat

In the result, both above CO

ITA 2893/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2892 & 2893/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Surat Melton Pvt. Ltd., (Osd)Circle-4, Road No.223, 6/1183, Mahidharpura, Dalia Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Sheri, Surat - 395003. [Pan: Aafcs5 3083 M ] Surat. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Co. No’S.289 & 290/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Surat Melton Pvt. Ltd., V. Joint Commissioner Of Income- 6/1183, Mahidharpura, Dalia Sheri, Tax (Osd)Circle-4, Road No.223, Surat - 395003. Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, [Pan: Aafcs5 3083 M] Surat. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri R.P.Rastogi – Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 18.07.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of 27.08.2019 Pronouncement

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

unaccounted investment at Rs.62,39,196/- and after allowing deduction of Rs.40,00,000/- of the disclosure made during a survey as included in revised return, made a net addition of Rs.22,39,196/- for A.Y. 2007-08. Similarly, the peak of Rs.76,36,881/- on account of unaccounted investment ... income of Rs.40,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- for the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. The assessee has filed a revised return of income on 29.03.2008 be by declaring income of Rs.40,00,000/- for the assessment year 2007-08 and also filed an original return

The Jt.CIT., (OSD)Circle-4, Surat vs. M/S. Surat Metlon Pvt.Ltd., Surat

In the result, both above CO

ITA 2892/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No’S.2892 & 2893/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Surat Melton Pvt. Ltd., (Osd)Circle-4, Road No.223, 6/1183, Mahidharpura, Dalia Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Sheri, Surat - 395003. [Pan: Aafcs5 3083 M ] Surat. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Co. No’S.289 & 290/Ahd/2011 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S. Surat Melton Pvt. Ltd., V. Joint Commissioner Of Income- 6/1183, Mahidharpura, Dalia Sheri, Tax (Osd)Circle-4, Road No.223, Surat - 395003. Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, [Pan: Aafcs5 3083 M] Surat. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri R.P.Rastogi – Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 18.07.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of 27.08.2019 Pronouncement

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

unaccounted investment at Rs.62,39,196/- and after allowing deduction of Rs.40,00,000/- of the disclosure made during a survey as included in revised return, made a net addition of Rs.22,39,196/- for A.Y. 2007-08. Similarly, the peak of Rs.76,36,881/- on account of unaccounted investment ... income of Rs.40,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- for the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. The assessee has filed a revised return of income on 29.03.2008 be by declaring income of Rs.40,00,000/- for the assessment year 2007-08 and also filed an original return

Urban Code Architectural Works Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1195/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1195/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Urban Code Architectural Works The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., 219, First Floor, Fountain Vs. Corporate Circle 3(3), Plaza, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai . Chennai 600 008. [Pan:Aabcu2339N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G.N. Ragavendra Rao, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 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) 7, Chennai, Dated 27.11.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. Besides Challenging Various Issues On Merits, The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged The Ex-Parte Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) By Raising A Specific Ground.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.N. Ragavendra Rao, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 08.10.2015 admitting income of ₹.35,67,240/- and later on filed revised return admitting total income of ₹.33,55,550/- on 04.11.2015. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income

DCIT Cen Cir 8(3), Mumbai vs. Sun Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1677/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1677/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit Cent. Cir- 8(3) बिधम/ M/S. Sun Investment Pvt. (Erstwhile Dcit, Cc-46, Ltd. Vs. Mumbai) Jindal Mansion, 5A Dr. G. 6Th Floor, Room No.659, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai- Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 400026. Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacs0389M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Rishabh Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 04.12.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -47, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2007- 08. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

provisions of Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Rules are applicable w.e.f. A.Y. 2008- 09 onwards. The assessee failed to revised return of income u/s 153 of the Act and assessed the demat charges in sum of Rs.86,043/- and Rs.1,39,48,189/- being

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow vs. Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 561/LKW/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Cit (Exemptions) V. M/S Indian Institute Of Management Lucknow Lucknow Off Sitapur Road, Prabandh Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaati2622Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Respondent By: Shri Ashish Kapoor, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 20 08 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Lucknow, Dated 8/5/2018, For The Assessment Year 2010-11, Taking The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee & Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,05,76,925/- Made On Account Of The Assessee Had Not Maintained Separate Books Of Accounts In Respect Of The Business Activities, Which Are Not Incidental To The Objectives Of The Society. 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts By Following Other Year'S Appellate Order & Thereby

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kapoor, C.A
Section 10

light of approval granted by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax. Though the Assessing Officer cannot entertain the aforesaid claim without filing the revised return, but the Tribunal being the appellate authority have the jurisdiction to send the matter back to the Assessing Officer to reconsider the claim