← 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

DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Electro Mechanical Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 252/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.252/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit 1(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Blue Star Electro 579, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Mechanical Ltd. Vs. Road, Mumbai-400020. Kasturi Building, Mohan T. Advani Chowk, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecb1558M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Sr Ar) Assessee By: Shri Soumen Adak & Ashish Jhawar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.09.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 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 Was Justified In Holding That Rights Acquired For Acquisition Of Customer Contracts Falls Within The Expression "Any Other Business A.Y.2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak & AshishFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria (Sr AR)
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 32

Book loss u/s 115JB of the Act to the tune of Rs.(-)15,96,78,868/-. The assessee filed the revised return of income on 05.04.2013 declaring the same loss under the normal provisions of the Act and Book loss u/s 115JB of the Act as per the return

ITO 20(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Network Consulting, Mumbai

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

ITA 4571/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4571/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Ito-20(2)(3), 411, बिधम/ M/S. Network Consulting Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, 102, Osia Friendship, 51, Vs. Mumbai-400012. Gaothan Lane No.4, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahfn2945C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.05.2014 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -31, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. The Ld Clt(A) Has Erred On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law In Allowing The Deduction U/S 10A Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 61,43,026/- Without Appreciating The Fact That As Per Clause 32 Of The Audit Report U/S 44Ab In Form No. 3Cd Submitted By The Assessee, The Auditor Has Mentioned That The Firm Is Into Service Industries & As Per Details Given By The Assessee A.Y.2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 10Section 10ASection 10A(1)Section 143(2)Section 1QSection 44A

declaring total income to the tune of Rs.257/-. after claiming the deduction u/s 10A of the Act of Rs.61,43,028/-. Subsequently, revised return of income was filed by declaring the same income. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, notices

Mahesh Rajmal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals for assessment year 2009-2010 are allowed

ITA 2191/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Mukesh Rajmal Parekh, The Asst. Cit- Cir 25(3), 201, 2Nd Floor, Ajit Mansion, 1St Floor, C-13, R.C. Marg, Vile Parle (East), Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400057 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Pan: Aabpp5098G Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Mahesh Rajmal Parekh, The Asst. Cit- Cir 25(3), 201, 2Nd Floor, Ajit Mansion, 1St Floor, C-13, R.C. Marg, Vile Parle (East), Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400057 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Pan: Aabpp5098G Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dinkle Hariya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Choudhary Arunkumar Singh (DR)
Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

cash receipt of Rs. 13,00,000 invested in ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Policy. In view of his said explanation, the appellant furnished the revised return for the assessment year under consideration and declared the amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- which had inadvertently been not included in the original ... assessee challenged the validity of notice u/s 148 and without prejudice submitted that the appellant has already filed a revised return which may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee further contended that since the AO has accepted the revised return

Mukesh Rajmal Parekh, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals for assessment year 2009-2010 are allowed

ITA 2189/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Mukesh Rajmal Parekh, The Asst. Cit- Cir 25(3), 201, 2Nd Floor, Ajit Mansion, 1St Floor, C-13, R.C. Marg, Vile Parle (East), Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400057 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Pan: Aabpp5098G Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Mahesh Rajmal Parekh, The Asst. Cit- Cir 25(3), 201, 2Nd Floor, Ajit Mansion, 1St Floor, C-13, R.C. Marg, Vile Parle (East), Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400057 Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Pan: Aabpp5098G Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dinkle Hariya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Choudhary Arunkumar Singh (DR)
Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

cash receipt of Rs. 13,00,000 invested in ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Policy. In view of his said explanation, the appellant furnished the revised return for the assessment year under consideration and declared the amount of Rs. 13,00,000/- which had inadvertently been not included in the original ... assessee challenged the validity of notice u/s 148 and without prejudice submitted that the appellant has already filed a revised return which may be treated as return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee further contended that since the AO has accepted the revised return