← 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

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4326/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. Nos.4326/Mum/2017, 4327/Mum/2017, 4329/Mum/2017, 4331/Mum/2017, 4332/Mum/2017, 4475/Mum/2017 & 4476/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009–10, 2010–11,2012–13,2013–14 &, 2014–15) Maharashtra Industrial Development Assistant Commissioner Of Income Corporation Tax (Exemptions) 2(1) Udyog Sarathi, Piramal Chambers, बिाम/ Mahakali Caves Road, Lalbaug, Vs. Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400093 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaacm3560C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri V. Sridharan & S. Sriram प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Singh (Cit–Dr)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan & S. SriramFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh (CIT–DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

A.Y.2007–08 assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring loss of `.54,39,99,473/–. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 25.2008 reducing the loss to `.40452295/–. Assessment in case of the assessee was originally completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of India, Mumbai

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

ITA 1128/MUM/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.1128/Mum/2017 & 1093/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2004-05 & 2008-09) Dcit-2(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Bank Of India Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Star House, C-5, G-Block Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bandra-Kurla Complex Road, Mumbai-400020. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb0472C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Awunashi Gimson Assessee By: Shri C. Naresh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ays. 2004-05 & 2008-09. Ita. No. 1128/M/2017 The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.11.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Awunashi Gimson
Section 143(2)Section 154Section 244ASection 254Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

upon the assessee. The assessee has claimed the bad debts of Rs.508,90,28,469/- u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act in the revised return of income. In the original return of income, the assessee claim of bad debts in sum of Rs.550,03,05,865/-, the same

Giriraj Speciality Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 9 (3) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6127/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 6127/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिधम/ M/S. Giriraj Speciality P Ltd Ito-9(3)(4) 4, Rambha, Dadabhai Road Mumbai Vs. Vile Parle (W) Mumbai- 400056. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecg0215G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.07.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

expenses claimed were on account of WIP of factory building, thereafter, the notice was issued to the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee filed the revised return of income to the tune of Rs.Nil. The claim to the tune of Rs.24,87,348/- was disallowed and the income of the assessee

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. K.P. Power P. Td, Mumbai

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

ITA 4518/MUM/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.4518/Mum/2011, 547/Mum/2012 & 1306/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2002-03, 2006-07 & 2007-08) Dcit, Range (9)(2) बिधम/ M/S. K.P. Power Pvt. Ltd. 229-230, 2Nd Floor, Arun Aayakar Bhavan, R. No. Vs. Chambers Tardeo, Mumbai- 218, 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road, 400034. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.173/Mum/2012 & 1385/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08) बिधम/ M/S. K.P. Power Pvt. Ltd. Additional Cit Range 9(2) Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, 229/230, 2Nd Floor, Arun Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Chambers Tardeo, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400034. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabck9495M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri S. K. Bepari Assessee By: Shri Girish Dave सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07.09.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As The Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2002-03, 2006-07 & 2007-08. Ita. No. 4518/Mum/2011, 547/Mum/2012 & 1306/Mum/2012 173/Mum/2012 & 1385/Mum/2012 A.Ys. 2002-03, 2006-07 & 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Girish DaveFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Bepari
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80

assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2002 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.16,66,750/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return of income declaring total income to the tune of Rs.16,31,150/- u/s 115JB of the Act and income at Rs.Nil under the normal provision

K T Dongre & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4733/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri N.K. Pradhanm/S. K.T. Dongre & Co. P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-10(2)(1) C/O. Shyam Malpani & Assocaites Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 307, Chartered House Vs. Mumbai 400020 297/299, Dr. C.H. Street Mumbai 400002 Pan – Aaack9366J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri K. Gopal Respondent By: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh Date Of Hearing: 30.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2018 O R D E R Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-21, Mumbai Dated 25.03.2013 & It Relates To A.Y. 2008-09. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: - “1. The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred As "Cit (A)") Has Erred Confirming The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer Making Addition Long Term Capital Gain Of Rs.2,90,67,850/- Based On Agreement For Sale Dated 12.10.2007 Entered Into With M/S. Nensee Construction Pvt. Ltd. Inspite Of The Fact That There Is No Performance On The Part Of The Concerned Parties In Relation To The Such Agreement Of Sale. Therefore, There Is No Transfer Or Deemed Transfer Within The Meaning Of Provisions Of Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, Question Of Taxing Such Capital Gains Which Had Not Been Accrued Or Deemed To Had Been Accrued Does Not Arise. Such Long Term Capital Gain Has Been Worked Out By Considering The Sale Consideration At Rs.5,34,02,500/- As Against Agreement Price Of Rs.1,80,00,000/- By Invoking Provisions Of Section 50C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Utter Disregard To The Pending Litigations I.E. The Company Petition No.809 Of 2003 Filed By An Alleged Creditor For Winding Up Of The Assessee Company & Also A Cloud In The Title Due

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 50C

fulfil the contract. In spite of that, if such rare situations take place, the owner/transferor will not be without remedy. He can file a revised return and make out a case of exclusion or reeducation of income. However, if the time-limit for filing a revised return expires, the difficulty