← 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, Central Circle-2(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Badrinath Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 154/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 Acit, Central Circle- V/S. M/S Badrinath Infrastructure 2(3), Room No. 403, 4Th Pvt. Ltd., 107, Park Street, Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-16 Poorva, 110, Shanti [Pan No.Aaccv 5513 E] Pally; E.M. Bye-Pass, Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 27-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Challenges The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.11.2016, Passed In Case No.1136/Cit(A)-20/Cc-2(3)/15-16, Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of ₹85,97,925/- In His Order Dated 29.09.2015, Involving Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’.

Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

Devchand Rajani [2013] 33 taxmann.com 174(Gujarat) where it had been held that where assessee to buy peace and to avoid protracted litigation filed revised return disclosing additional income, imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) upon assessee on plea that he had furnished inaccurate particulars of income

Narendra Ishwarlal Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7316/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7316/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Narendra Ishwarlal Gandhi बिधम/ The Asst. Commissioner Of 3C, Ridge Apartement, B.G Income Tax Circle 10(2)(1) Vs. Kher Marg, Malabar Hill, Mumbai-400006. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adnpg4447P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Ms. Shebali Garg सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1 The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Dismissing The Appeal On Technical Ground. The Appeal Was Filed Within 30 Days From The Date Of The Receipt Of The Order, The Action Is Unjustified & Unwarranted. 2. The Ld. C1T(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs- 840,000 Notional Income A.Y.2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Shebali GargFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 14A

income on 22.07.2013 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.32,25,100/- for the A.Y. 2013-14. The assessee also filed the revised return of income on 22.07.2013 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.32,22,600/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices