← 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

S. Kamala, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2393/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/Chny/16 I.T.A. Nos.2386 to 2401/Chny/16 parents during the marriage and other functions over the year. The assessees also filed revised return before initiating penalty proceeding disclosing all the jewellery and offered the same for taxation. According to the Ld. representative, the revised returns filed ... concealment of any part of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In this case, the assessees admitted their entire income in the revised return and therefore, there is no question of any concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Moreover, according to the Ld. representative, when the Assessing Officer accepted

H. Pradeepa, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2392/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/Chny/16 I.T.A. Nos.2386 to 2401/Chny/16 parents during the marriage and other functions over the year. The assessees also filed revised return before initiating penalty proceeding disclosing all the jewellery and offered the same for taxation. According to the Ld. representative, the revised returns filed ... concealment of any part of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In this case, the assessees admitted their entire income in the revised return and therefore, there is no question of any concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Moreover, according to the Ld. representative, when the Assessing Officer accepted

V. Harikrishnan, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2391/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/Chny/16 I.T.A. Nos.2386 to 2401/Chny/16 parents during the marriage and other functions over the year. The assessees also filed revised return before initiating penalty proceeding disclosing all the jewellery and offered the same for taxation. According to the Ld. representative, the revised returns filed ... concealment of any part of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In this case, the assessees admitted their entire income in the revised return and therefore, there is no question of any concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Moreover, according to the Ld. representative, when the Assessing Officer accepted

G. Ananthi, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2390/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/Chny/16 I.T.A. Nos.2386 to 2401/Chny/16 parents during the marriage and other functions over the year. The assessees also filed revised return before initiating penalty proceeding disclosing all the jewellery and offered the same for taxation. According to the Ld. representative, the revised returns filed ... concealment of any part of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In this case, the assessees admitted their entire income in the revised return and therefore, there is no question of any concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Moreover, according to the Ld. representative, when the Assessing Officer accepted

V. Harikrishnan (HUF), Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2389/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/Chny/16 I.T.A. Nos.2386 to 2401/Chny/16 parents during the marriage and other functions over the year. The assessees also filed revised return before initiating penalty proceeding disclosing all the jewellery and offered the same for taxation. According to the Ld. representative, the revised returns filed ... concealment of any part of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In this case, the assessees admitted their entire income in the revised return and therefore, there is no question of any concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Moreover, according to the Ld. representative, when the Assessing Officer accepted

A. Geetha, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2452/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/Chny/16 I.T.A. Nos.2386 to 2401/Chny/16 parents during the marriage and other functions over the year. The assessees also filed revised return before initiating penalty proceeding disclosing all the jewellery and offered the same for taxation. According to the Ld. representative, the revised returns filed ... concealment of any part of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In this case, the assessees admitted their entire income in the revised return and therefore, there is no question of any concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Moreover, according to the Ld. representative, when the Assessing Officer accepted

S. Ashok Kumar, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2451/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/Chny/16 I.T.A. Nos.2386 to 2401/Chny/16 parents during the marriage and other functions over the year. The assessees also filed revised return before initiating penalty proceeding disclosing all the jewellery and offered the same for taxation. According to the Ld. representative, the revised returns filed ... concealment of any part of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In this case, the assessees admitted their entire income in the revised return and therefore, there is no question of any concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Moreover, according to the Ld. representative, when the Assessing Officer accepted

V. Ramesh (HUF), Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2388/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/Chny/16 I.T.A. Nos.2386 to 2401/Chny/16 parents during the marriage and other functions over the year. The assessees also filed revised return before initiating penalty proceeding disclosing all the jewellery and offered the same for taxation. According to the Ld. representative, the revised returns filed ... concealment of any part of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In this case, the assessees admitted their entire income in the revised return and therefore, there is no question of any concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Moreover, according to the Ld. representative, when the Assessing Officer accepted

Prasanna. G., Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2387/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/Chny/16 I.T.A. Nos.2386 to 2401/Chny/16 parents during the marriage and other functions over the year. The assessees also filed revised return before initiating penalty proceeding disclosing all the jewellery and offered the same for taxation. According to the Ld. representative, the revised returns filed ... concealment of any part of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In this case, the assessees admitted their entire income in the revised return and therefore, there is no question of any concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Moreover, according to the Ld. representative, when the Assessing Officer accepted

V. Damotharan (HUF), Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stand

ITA 2386/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

I.T.A. Nos.2450 to 2452/Chny/16 I.T.A. Nos.2386 to 2401/Chny/16 parents during the marriage and other functions over the year. The assessees also filed revised return before initiating penalty proceeding disclosing all the jewellery and offered the same for taxation. According to the Ld. representative, the revised returns filed ... concealment of any part of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. In this case, the assessees admitted their entire income in the revised return and therefore, there is no question of any concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Moreover, according to the Ld. representative, when the Assessing Officer accepted

Rajesh D. Dedhia, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

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

ITA 2711/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Shri G. Manjunatha, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2711/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Rajesh D. Dedhia बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-23, Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, C-308, Shreenath Darshan, Vs. Off, 30 Tp. Road, Borivali Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (W), Mumbai-400092 Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abhpd1165B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mittal ( Dr) Assessee By: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.02.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2010- 11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Penalty Under Section 27I(L)(C) Of Rs.20,78,458/- Invoking Explanation-5 A To Section 271(1) (C) Of The It. Act 1961, 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Income Of Rs,71,53F28Q/- Is Added To The Income Of (He Assessee On Estimation Of Gross Profile At 26.40% Of The Goods Sold

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal ( DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 27I

Jindal (2017) 79 taxmann.com 96 ( Delhi High Court has also held that:- “2.1 Thus, it is clear that when the AO has accepted the revised return filed by the assessee u/s 153A, no occasion arises to refer to previous return filed u/s 139 of the Act. For all the purposes ... assessee, which incidentally gives him an opportunity to make good omission if any, in the original return. Once the AO accepts the revised return filed u/s 153A, the original return u/s 139 abates and becomes non-est. Now, it is trite to say that the “concealment” has to be seen

Vijay Gramin Bigarsheti Sah. Patsanstha, Solapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pandharpur

ITA 900/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80Section 80P(2)(a)

members. The assessee filed return of income on 28.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The assessee filed revised return of income declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The case

Eih Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1)Kol., Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Eih Ltd V/S. Dcit, Circle-8(1), 4, Mangoe Lane, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Kolkata-700 001 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaace 6898 B] Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ravi Sharma, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-02-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-05-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, (Drp For Short) Dated 17.10.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata U/S 144C(13)/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.11.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13 & Grounds Raised By Assessee Read As Under:- “1.0 Determination Of Arm'S Length Price For Corporate Guarantee Fees 1.1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Transfer Pricing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Tpo") & Accordingly Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld. Ao") Erred In Treating The Corporate Guarantee Extended By The Appellant To Its Associated Enterprise (Ae) As International Transaction & Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As "Ld, Panel") Erred In Confirming The Same As An International Transaction Without Appreciating The Fact That It Does Not Fall Within The Ambit Of "International Transaction" U/S 92B Of The Act. 1.2 The Ld.Ao/Tpo & The Ld. Panel Failed To Appreciate The Fact That Corporate Guarantee Has Been Advanced By The Appellant As A Matter Of Commercial Prudence To Protect The Business Interest Of The Group By Fulfilling

Section 14Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Arya Ship Breaking Corportion, Mumbai

ITA 3983/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi -ARFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh-CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

filed present appeal.Assessee-company,engaged in the business of trading in steel items,filed its original return on 12/10/2010 u/s. 139.Subsequently,a revised return of income was filed on 18/06/2012 ,declaring total income at Rs.67,00,202/-.Assessment was completed, u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act,vide order,dated

Business Match Services (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 9(1), Mumbai

ITA 216/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O. Rajora-ARFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar-DR
Section 143Section 14ASection 254(1)

arranging loans and also advising on insurance business.It filed its return on 15/10/2010 declaring total income at Rs.6,01,32,801/-.Later on a revised return of income was filed on 30/03/2012,declaring total income at Rs.5,99,14,818/-. The Assessing Officer(AO)completed the assessment on 11/01/2013

Oricon Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 2913/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Swamy-CIT-DR
Section 14Section 148Section 254(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)Section 43Section 43B

closed on 31/12/1971. The profit and loss from these two units were also included in the return filed. On 16/04/1974, the company filed a revised return. On April 10/04/1975, the AO informed the petitioner that it would not be possible to accept the change of the previous year as granted ... operations, the assessee declared Rs. 18 lakhs in respect of a project.The assessee included this amount in the original return,but later in the revised return he withdrew this amount.The AO computed the income as declared in the original return. The FAA held that the revised return was an afterthought

Cummins India Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 309/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 92C

engines. For the year under consideration, the assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income of ₹ 478.77 crores. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income declaring total income of ₹ 478.77 crores due less TDS claim in original return. The assessee had entered into international transactions with ... while dismissing the appeal clarified that its decision was restricted to the power of Assessing Officer to entertain claim for deduction otherwise than by revised return of income and did not impinge on the powers of assessing authority under section 254 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court further

DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1790/KOL/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2018AY 1996-97

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1790/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 1996-97 D.C.I.T., Circle-8(1) -Vs- M/S E.I.H. Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan: Aaace 6898 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Shri A.K.Gupta, Fca

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Gupta, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 80H

together with Tax Audit report and its annexures and the audit report in Form 10CCAD for claiming deduction u/s 80HHD of the Act. A revised return was filed on 12.08.1997 declaring total income of Rs.50,04,38,718/-. The ld. AO observed that the assessee has debited various expenses under

ACIT Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. Tamilnadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3047/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri B. Gowthaman, CAFor Respondent: 10.05.2018
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37

return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 electronically on 30.09.2013 admitting total income of Rs.2,50,46,020/-. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return of income on 21.03.2014 admitting total income of Rs.7,47,17,920/-. Initially the return was processed U/s.143(1) of the Act and subsequently

Chennai Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Chennai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2168/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Smt. Ruby George, CITFor Respondent: 08.03.2018
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A(3)Section 263

return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 electronically on 30.09.2009 admitting total income of Rs.31,45,31,341/- and subsequently filed revised return on 10.02.2010 admitting total income of Rs.38,55,67,390/- and for the assessment year 2010-11 the assessee filed its return of income electronically