← 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 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 456/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 456/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2009-10) Dcit 3(3)(1) M/S Rallis India Ltd Room No. 609, 6Th Floor, Aayakar बिधम/ 156/157, Nariman Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bhavan, Nariman Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcr2657N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : C.O. No. 117/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S Rallis India Ltd Dcit 3(3)(1) Room No. 609, 6Th 156/157, Nariman Bhavan, बिधम/ Nariman Point, Floor, Aayakar Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2728/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2009-10) M/S Rallis India Ltd Dcit 3(3)(1) Room No. 609, 6Th 156/157, Nariman Bhavan, बिधम/ Nariman Point, Floor, Aayakar Vs. Mumbai-400 021 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri A. MohanFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Jain /H
Section 143(3)Section 263

tanning material. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 29.09.2009 declaring total income of R.s 91,47,89,900/-. Thereafter a revised return of income was filed on 29.03.11 declaring total income at Rs. 84,33,81,255/-. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and after

Thomson Reuters International Services Private Limited(Succesor in Interest to Thomsan Reuters International Services Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2053/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Thomson Reuters International Dcit, Circle 13(3)(2) Services Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor (Successor In Interst To Thomson Reuters Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road India Services Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Mumbai 400020 Prism Towers, A Wing, 8Th Floor Mindspace, Off New Link Road Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400062 Pan – Aabci0605H Appellant Respondent Dcit, Circle 13(3)(2) M/S. Thomson Reuters Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor International Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Services Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai 400020 (Successor In Interst To Thomson Vs. Reuters India Services Pvt. Ltd.) Prism Towers, A Wing, 8Th Floor Mindspace, Off New Link Road Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400062 Pan – Aabci0605H Appellant Respondent Co No. 148/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Thomson Reuters International Dcit, Circle 13(3)(2) Services Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor Prism Towers, A Wing, 8Th Floor Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mindspace, Off New Link Road Mumbai 400020 Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400062 Pan – Aabci0605H Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal Assessee By: Shri Percy J. Pardiwala & Ms. Aarti Sathe Revenue By: Shir Jayant Kumar Date Of Hearing: 07.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.08.2018

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Shir Jayant Kumar
Section 10ASection 143(3)

above acquisition. However, during A.Y. 2011-12, the year under consideration the company had claimed depreciation on goodwill in revised return of income relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smifs Securities Ltd. 348 ITR 302, since the appeal ... granting credit for TDS of Rs. 5.07.821/- 16. We found that credit was claimed by assessee in respect of TDS in its revised return. We direct the AO to verify the actual credit of TDS and to decide the same afresh. 17. Charging of interest under Section 234B, 234C