← 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, New Delhi vs. M/S Powerlinks Transmission Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1809/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Powerlinks Transmission Ltd., 10Th Floor, Dlf Tower-A, Circle 20(1), New Delhi. Distt. Centre, Jasola, New Delhi. Pan: Aabct7775M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoneet Dalal, Shri Vishu Goel & Shri Dipanshu Mutreja, Advocates Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20Th January, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Transmission Of Electricity. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.28,76,36,810/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Its Revised Return On 28Th September, 2012 Declaring Nil Income After Claiming Unabsorbed Depreciation. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2)/142(1) Were Issued. The Assessing Officer, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Asked The Assessee To Explain The Claim Of Deduction U/S 36(1)(Iii) On Account Of Interest & To Furnish The Information Regarding Details Of Investments Made As On 31.03.2011 & 31.03.2012

For Appellant: Shri Manoneet Dalal, Shri Vishu Goel &For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 28Section 36(1)(iii)

business of transmission of electricity. It filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.28,76,36,810/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed its revised return on 28th September, 2012 declaring nil income after claiming unabsorbed depreciation. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2)/142

Mudunuri Subba Raju, Bhimavaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 575/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.421-423/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) . Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi Vs Income Tax Officer D.No.27-17-63 Ward-2 Asr Nagar Bhimavaram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan :Bdupm6273P] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.573-575/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju Vs. Income Tax Officer F.No.100, R R Enclave Ward-2 Opp.Aditya Public School Bhimavaram Suryanarayanapuram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Adlpm6979Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 148

Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short). 2.1. In response to the notice issued u/s 148, the assessee has filed the revised returns of income admitting the income at Rs.15,000/- per acre of water spread area on estimation basis. Subsequently, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny ... Accordingly made the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- in each case. As per the assessments completed by the AO, the returned income originally, the revised return of income and the assessed income in the case of both the assessees are as under : Smt.Mudunuri Sridevi Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju Revised Revised

Mudunuri Subba Raju, Bhimavaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 574/VIZ/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.421-423/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) . Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi Vs Income Tax Officer D.No.27-17-63 Ward-2 Asr Nagar Bhimavaram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan :Bdupm6273P] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.573-575/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju Vs. Income Tax Officer F.No.100, R R Enclave Ward-2 Opp.Aditya Public School Bhimavaram Suryanarayanapuram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Adlpm6979Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 148

Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short). 2.1. In response to the notice issued u/s 148, the assessee has filed the revised returns of income admitting the income at Rs.15,000/- per acre of water spread area on estimation basis. Subsequently, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny ... Accordingly made the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- in each case. As per the assessments completed by the AO, the returned income originally, the revised return of income and the assessed income in the case of both the assessees are as under : Smt.Mudunuri Sridevi Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju Revised Revised

Mudunuri Subba Raju, Bhimavaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 573/VIZ/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.421-423/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) . Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi Vs Income Tax Officer D.No.27-17-63 Ward-2 Asr Nagar Bhimavaram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan :Bdupm6273P] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.573-575/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju Vs. Income Tax Officer F.No.100, R R Enclave Ward-2 Opp.Aditya Public School Bhimavaram Suryanarayanapuram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Adlpm6979Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 148

Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short). 2.1. In response to the notice issued u/s 148, the assessee has filed the revised returns of income admitting the income at Rs.15,000/- per acre of water spread area on estimation basis. Subsequently, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny ... Accordingly made the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- in each case. As per the assessments completed by the AO, the returned income originally, the revised return of income and the assessed income in the case of both the assessees are as under : Smt.Mudunuri Sridevi Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju Revised Revised

Mudunuri Sridevi, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 423/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.421-423/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) . Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi Vs Income Tax Officer D.No.27-17-63 Ward-2 Asr Nagar Bhimavaram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan :Bdupm6273P] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.573-575/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju Vs. Income Tax Officer F.No.100, R R Enclave Ward-2 Opp.Aditya Public School Bhimavaram Suryanarayanapuram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Adlpm6979Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 148

Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short). 2.1. In response to the notice issued u/s 148, the assessee has filed the revised returns of income admitting the income at Rs.15,000/- per acre of water spread area on estimation basis. Subsequently, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny ... Accordingly made the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- in each case. As per the assessments completed by the AO, the returned income originally, the revised return of income and the assessed income in the case of both the assessees are as under : Smt.Mudunuri Sridevi Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju Revised Revised

Mudunuri Sridevi, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhimavaram

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 422/VIZ/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.421-423/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) . Smt. Mudunuri Sridevi Vs Income Tax Officer D.No.27-17-63 Ward-2 Asr Nagar Bhimavaram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan :Bdupm6273P] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.573-575/Viz/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13) Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju Vs. Income Tax Officer F.No.100, R R Enclave Ward-2 Opp.Aditya Public School Bhimavaram Suryanarayanapuram Bhimavaram West Godavari Dist. [Pan : Adlpm6979Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.01.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 148

Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ in short). 2.1. In response to the notice issued u/s 148, the assessee has filed the revised returns of income admitting the income at Rs.15,000/- per acre of water spread area on estimation basis. Subsequently, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny ... Accordingly made the addition of Rs.9,00,000/- in each case. As per the assessments completed by the AO, the returned income originally, the revised return of income and the assessed income in the case of both the assessees are as under : Smt.Mudunuri Sridevi Shri Mudunuri Subba Raju Revised Revised