← 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

Ifc Universal Express Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4661/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4661/Mum/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) बनधम/ M/S. Ifc Universal Ito 8(2)(1) Room No. 477, Aayakar Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, 11, Adeshwar Arcade, Mumbai-400020. Andheri-Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci8524P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.03.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Lax (Appeals) Erred In Not Deleting Disallowance Of Expenses On Payments Of Freight Made To Jet Airways (India)Ltd Rs.7.15.765/- & To Kingfisher Airlines Ltd Rs.50,38,699/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Appreciating The Submissions Tiled By The Appellant, That The Introduction To Proviso To Section 201(I)Is Explanatory/Clarificatory & Therefore Should Apply Retrospectively & Therefore Payments Of Freight Without Tds

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abirama Kartikiyen (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 201Section 40

provisions of chapter XVII of the Act, that later on it withdrew the disallowance made under section 40(a)(ia) in the revised return, that it relied upon the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Ltd.(293 ITR 226), that the AO and the FAA held that facts ... statute book with effect from 01/04/2013, that the act of the assessee of deleting the addition under section 40(a)(ia) in the revised return for the assessment year 2012-13 was not in consonance with the judgment of the Hon’ble of Apex Court or the Act, that

Babu Sayabanna Mehetre, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.530/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Babu Sayabanna Mehetre, Office No.8, Deep Laxmi Building, Near Power House Chowk, Chinchwad Gaon, Pune-411033. Pan : Abapm3697A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-9, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Garg सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25.04.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-13, Pune Dated 27.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Effective Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Assessing Officer Have Erred In Levying Penalty Of Rs.36,45,400/- By Invoking Provisions Of Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, By Disregarding Appellant’S Contention In This Regard.” 4. Briefly Stated The Relevant Facts Include That The Assessee Is A Promoter, Builder & Developer & Is Engaged In The Business Of Civil

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 133ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessment proceedings, the assessee explained that he had already paid the taxes on the said additional income and in this regard filed the revised return of income for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer did not satisfy with the explanation of the assessee and added the said additional income

Sheth Commercial Co., Kolkata vs. CIT-14 Kolkata, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1406/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Sheth Commercial Co. V/S. Pr. Cit-14, C/O D.J. Shah & Co. 3, Government Place, Kalyan Bhavan, 2 Elgin Kolkata-700001 Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan No.Aakfs 409 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Shrhari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-04-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 20.03.2017 Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame Afresh Assessment After Setting Aside The Regular One Framed Dated 23.03.2015 In Exercising Revision Jurisdiction Vested U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). We Have Heard Shri Miraj D Shah Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri P.K.Srihari, Cit/Dr Appearing At Revenue’S Behest. Case File Perused. 2. It Transpires During The Course Of Hearing That The Assessee’S Pleading Challenge Correctness Of The Pcit’S Order Revising The Regular Assessment In Issue Framed By The Assessing Officer On 06.07.2016 With Directions To Frame

Section 1Section 263Section 35(1)(c)

proceedings by issuing his notice dated 26.02.2016. He then framed the assessment / re-assessment in the issue on 06.07.2016 accepting the taxpayer’s revised return seeking the withdraw sec. 35(1)(c) deduction of donation made to M/s Herbicure Healthcare Bio-herbal Research Foundation, Kolkata to the tune ... show-cause notice comprising of three reasons and last one dropped in the PCIT’s order under challenge since the taxpayer had itself filed revised return (supra); makes it clear that the impugned assessment / re-assessment was erroneous causing prejudiced to the interest of the Revenue on the ground that

Grindwell Norton Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 404/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blea.C.I.T – 9(3)(2) V. M/S Grindwell Norton Ltd., 418, 4Th Floor, Leela Business Park, 5Th Level, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 099 Pan: Aaacg 8725 B (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Grindwell Norton Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -1(3)(2) V. Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Army & Navy Building, Mumbai-400 020 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacg 8725 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akram Khan Department By : Shri Kiran Unavekar

For Appellant: Shri Akram KhanFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 143(3)Section 14A

reason that assessee made its claim only during the course of assessment proceedings and not by way of filing revised return. Therefore, Ld.CIT(A) referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd v. CIT [284 ITR 323], rejected the claim ... assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that any such additional claim can be raised before the appellate authorities even though assessee not filed revised return making its claim and this view is supported by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers

Acie 9(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Grindwell Norton Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 347/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blea.C.I.T – 9(3)(2) V. M/S Grindwell Norton Ltd., 418, 4Th Floor, Leela Business Park, 5Th Level, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Andheri Kurla Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 099 Pan: Aaacg 8725 B (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Grindwell Norton Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -1(3)(2) V. Room No. 535, 5Th Floor, Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Army & Navy Building, Mumbai-400 020 3Rd Floor, 148 M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaacg 8725 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Akram Khan Department By : Shri Kiran Unavekar

For Appellant: Shri Akram KhanFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar
Section 143(3)Section 14A

reason that assessee made its claim only during the course of assessment proceedings and not by way of filing revised return. Therefore, Ld.CIT(A) referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd v. CIT [284 ITR 323], rejected the claim ... assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that any such additional claim can be raised before the appellate authorities even though assessee not filed revised return making its claim and this view is supported by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers