← 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

Asiatic Gases Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 609/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2010-11 Asiatic Gases Ltd., Dcit, Circle-4(1), बनाम Aayakar Bhawan,8Th 8, B.B. D. Bag (East), / Kolkata-700 001 Floor, Kolkata V/S. [Pan No.Aacca 4768 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 27-03-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03-05-2018 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 Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata Dated 25.02.2016. Assessment Was Framed By Dcit, Circle-4, Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 09.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Per Its Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Ld. Cit(A) Should Have Deleted The Addition Of Bad Debts R.47767/- On The Basis Of Details Submitted Along With Written Submission As Marked Annexure ‘A’. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao For Addition Of Bad Debts Rs.477677/- Without Asking Any Details In Course Of Hearing By The Ao. 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao For Disallowing The Expenses Of Rs.285209/- As Claimed Against The Short Term Capital Gain. 4. The Ld. Cit(A) Show Have Not Given The Direction To The Ao To Assess The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.1010723/- & Long Term Capital Loss Rs.9492855/- As Per Revised Income Statement Submitted Before Ao Along With Letter Dt. 29.01.13 & Also Before The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Along With Written Submission As Marked Annexure ‘B’.

Section 143(3)

does not in any way relate to the power of the Assessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case ITA No.609/Kol/2016 ... that Hon'ble Supreme Court has prohibited the Assessing Officer to entertain any claim / deduction of the assessee otherwise than claimed in the return / revised return. However, this restriction was not imposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of appellant authority. Thus, it can be concluded that

Kanchan Singhvi, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2553/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2553/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Kanchan Singhvi, The Income Tax Officer, No. 156, Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 5(1), Chennai 600 079. Chennai. [Pan: Abhps2435F] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Nithya Sankaran, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Sagadevan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.04.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, Dated 20.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15.The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Long Term Capital Gain Of ₹.18,69,390/-

For Appellant: Ms. Nithya Sankaran, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

Assessing Officer was of the opinion that fresh exemption cannot be allowed based on any computation sheet when no revised return was filed by claiming allowable exemption. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not entitled to claim deduction 3 I.T.A. No.2553/Chny/17 under section ... contra, while supporting the orders of authorities below, the ld. DR has submitted that in the absence of any revised return filed by the assessee within the time stipulated under section 139 of the Act, the 4 I.T.A. No.2553/Chny/17 authorities below have constrained to allow exemption under section

Ashtech (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4986/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhashtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. Ito Ward-10(3)(4) Ashtech House, 30 Popat Wadi, Mumbai. Kalbadevi Road, Vs. Mumbai -400002 Pan:Aaeca4133B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Uttam Chand Bothara (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. The Instant Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner (Appeals)-9, Mumbai, Dated 24Th July 2015 For Assessment Year 2010-11, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Dated 10Th September 2014 Passed By Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Uttam Chand BotharaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 254(1)

which includes transportation charges of Rs. 5,96,000/- Subsequently, the assessee brought to the notice of Assessing Officer that the assessee has filed revised return of income on 30th March 2012 and that the Assessing Officer has not considered the revise return while computing the assessment on 25th February ... appreciated the fact in holding that during the assessment proceeding, the assessee has not brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer about the revise return of income and various other claims and/or the assessee has not discharge its obligation. Further, the finding of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that no material