← 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

Shri Dhanjibhai N. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-3, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2155/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: C .M. Garg, Jm & O. P. Meena, Am आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No. 2155/Ahd/2015: िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Dhanjibhai N. Patel V. Deputy Commissioner Of Nanavaty& Associates A/18, Income-Tax, Circle -3, Surat 3Rd Floor Narayan Chambers Ashram Road 380009 Pan: Aezpp 9747 E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से Assessee By Shri A. P. Nanavaty, Ca राज"व क" ओर से Revenue By Shri Dilip Kumar, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तारीख Date Of Hearing 12.10.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख Date Of Pronouncement 15.10.2018 आदेश /Order Per O. P. Meena, Am 1. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against An Order Dated03.06.2015 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Ii Surat (In Short “The Cit (A)”) For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Ground No. 1 To 4 Are Against The Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs. 3,77,142 Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act By Cit (A). 3. The Learned Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That Cit (A) Has Failed To Appreciate The On The Basis Of Return Filed U/S.147 Of The Act , There Is No Variation In The Returned Income & Assessed Income , Hence, Penalty Based On Return Filed U/S.147 Cannot Be Levied. Further, The Partners In Survey Under Section 133A, Has Admitted Capital Gains On The Ground & The Plea Of Treating Capital Gains In Order

Section 133ASection 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54B

Girish Devchand Rajani [2013] 33 taxmann.com 17 (Gujarat) which held that where the assessee to buy peace and to avoid protracted litigation filed revised return disclosing additional income, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) is upon the assessee on the plea that furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income

M/S. Kashish Enterprise, Bhuj vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhuj

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 256/RJT/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 256/Rjt/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Kashish Enterprise Vs. Ito, Poonam Apartment, New Ward – 2, Station Road, Bhuj-Kutch Bhuj. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D. R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Ii, Rajkot [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- "1.0 The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 2.0 The Ld Cit(A)-Ii, Rajkot [Cit(A)] Erred In Facts As Also In Retaining Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act On Income Of Rs.55,53,360/-. The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act May Kindly Be Deleted. 3.0 The Honor’S Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Withdraw Any Or More Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. D. R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

DCIT 330 1TR 93, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held as under:- "The law on the subject of treating a revised return of income as voluntary or otherwise is well-settled. Merely because a return is revised that fact by itself cannot lead to any presumption ... concealment in the original return of income, because Legislature itself has provided for furnishing a revised return in case of any omission in the original return. Albeit such omission has to be inadvertent and bona fide. If the omission is intentional the revised return cannot absolve an assessee. The fact

ACIT, Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore vs. Anugraha Valve Castings Ltd, Coimbatore

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 379/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.379/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs M/S. Anugraha Valve Castings The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., Corporate Circle - 2, S.F. No.391/2, Sengods Coimbatore. Goundenpudur, Arasur Village, Coimbatore – 641 005. Pan: Aacca2285Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & C.O. No.62/Chny/2018 (In Ita No. 379/Chny/2018) Vs M/S. Anugraha Valve Castings The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Ltd., Tax, Corporate Circle - 2, S.F. No.391/2, Sengods Coimbatore. Goundenpudur, Arasur Village, Coimbatore – 641 005. Pan: Aacca2285Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Smt. Ruby George, Cit राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80I

case, that even if, the claim made by the assessee company does not form part of the original return or even the revised return, it could still be considered, if, the relevant material was available on record, either by the appellate authorities, (which includes both