← 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 Bassein Catholic Co Op Bank Ltd, Vasai vs. Asst CIT Cir 4, Thane

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

ITA 2387/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2387/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Bassein Catholic Co-Op. बिधम/ Acit Circle-4 Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, A Bank Ltd. Vs. Ground Floor, Catholic Bank Wing, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Building, Papdy, Tal-Vasai, Estate, Thane, (W), 400604. Pin-401207. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatb3965B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Milind V. Sahasrabudhe सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/04/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 23.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Milind V. SahasrabudheFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

income for the A.Y. 2010-11 on 14.10.2010 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.53,28,30,976/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income on 05.03.2012 declaring total income at Rs.42,67,36,813/-. In the revised return of income, the assessee bank has claimed deduction

Rcc (Sales ) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 38, Mumbai

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

ITA 1980/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1980/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S. Rcc (Sales) Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-38 Malhotra House, 4Th Floor (Now Acit, Central Circle- Vs. Opposite Gpo, Fort, 6(3) 19Th Floor, Air India Mumbai-400001. Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr9675D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dr. Prayag Jha Revenue By: Shri S. K. Mitra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.12.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -54, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Dr. Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Mitra
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

assessee filed its return of income on 15.10.2010 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.2,59,09,851/-. The assessee also filed the revised return of income on 12.12.2011 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.2,59,09,851/-. The return was processed

DCIT (It) 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Deutsche Bank Ag, Mumbai

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

ITA 6511/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6511/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dcit (It)-2(1)(2) बिधम/ Deutsche Bank Ag Room No.1713, 17Th Floor, 5Th Floor Nicholas Piramal Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Peninsula Corporate Park, Point, Mumbai-400021. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower, Parel, Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd1390F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sanjay Singh (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Percy Pardiwalla/Niraj Sheth सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -56, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2006- 07. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Interest Amount To Rs.4,10,15,246/- Levied U/S 220(2) Of The Act Without Appreciating That Levy Of Interest U/S 220(2) Is Independent Section & Liable On All Outstanding Dues & A.Y.2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla/Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh (DR)
Section 220Section 220(2)Section 244A

assessee filed its return of income on 28.11.2006 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.3,967,454,201/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed the revised return of income on 29.03.2008 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.4,026,987,504/-. The draft order dated 31.11.2009 was issued and served