← 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

Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 2(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 940/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-2(1)(1), Room No. M/S Bank Of India, Star 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Bank Of India, Star Assistant Commissioner House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Of Income Tax-2(1), Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent : Mr. M.V. Rajguru, Dr Revenue By Assessee By : Mr. C. Naresh, Ar Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2018

For Appellant: Mr. C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.V. Rajguru, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

return of income for the impugned assessment year on 09.10.2010 declaring a total income of Rs.497,56,67,270/-. Subsequently, it filed a revised return of income on 19.03.2012 showing total income of Rs.534,74,64,138/- The 1st ground of appeal is general in nature and requires no adjudication ... which clearly indicates its inclusion while arriving at the total income. M/s Bank of India 13. In the revised return of income, the assessee has claimed exclusion of foreign income of Rs.259,41,15,847/- u/s 90 of the Act. In the assessment order, the AO relied on Notification

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

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

ITA 822/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-2(1)(1), Room No. M/S Bank Of India, Star 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Bank Of India, Star Assistant Commissioner House, C-5, G-Block, Bandra Of Income Tax-2(1), Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent : Mr. M.V. Rajguru, Dr Revenue By Assessee By : Mr. C. Naresh, Ar Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2018

For Appellant: Mr. C. Naresh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. M.V. Rajguru, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

return of income for the impugned assessment year on 09.10.2010 declaring a total income of Rs.497,56,67,270/-. Subsequently, it filed a revised return of income on 19.03.2012 showing total income of Rs.534,74,64,138/- The 1st ground of appeal is general in nature and requires no adjudication ... which clearly indicates its inclusion while arriving at the total income. M/s Bank of India 13. In the revised return of income, the assessee has claimed exclusion of foreign income of Rs.259,41,15,847/- u/s 90 of the Act. In the assessment order, the AO relied on Notification