← 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

Kusegoan Relaty P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 15& 16, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalkusegaon Realty Pvt. Ltd. D.B. House, Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg ……………. Appellant Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan – Aadck0621P V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Central Circle–15 & 16, Mumbai Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Central Circle–15 & 16, Mumbai V/S Kusegaon Realty Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd.) ……………. Respondent D.B. House, Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan – Aadck0621P Assessee By : Shri C.M. Shah A/W Shri Ajay Wadhwa Revenue By : Shri H.N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Shah a/wFor Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh
Section 132(1)Section 133A

assessment year 2010–11 on 23rd September 2010, declaring total income of ` 11,57,690. Subsequently, on 7th September 2011, assessee filed a revised return of income offering ` 80,93,310 as the total income. 4. A search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income ... income for the assessment year 2010–11 assessee did not declare the interest income claimed to have been received from Cineyug. Subsequently, through a revised return of income filed on 07.09.2011 assessee offered the said interest income. Further, the assessing officer has observed that in the audited balance sheet

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S.Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd., Bangalore

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

ITA 1604/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Inturi Rama Raoasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs. Karnataka State Financial Corporation Ltd. ‘Ksfc Bhavan’, No.1/1, Thimmaiah Road, Near Cantonment Railway Station, Bengaluru. … Respondent Pan:Aaack 9480 H Appellant By : Shri A.C.Raju, Ca. Respondent By : Shri B.R.Ramesh, Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/04/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru, [Cit(A)], Dated 28/06/2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Briefly Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Respondent-Assessee Is An Undertaking Of Government Of Karnataka Set Up For The Purpose Of Providing Finance To Industries In The State Of Karnataka. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 30/09/2009. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By Order Dated 28/11/2011 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act' For Short] At Loss Of Rs.3,58,95,3461/. While Doing So, The Ao Disallowed A Sum Of Rs.34,17,548/- Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act, Legal & Professional Charges In Page 2 Of 8 Connection With Issue Of Bonds Of Rs.41,79,935/-, Also Not Allowed The Claim For Deduction Of Rs.548.64 Lakhs Being The Liability Arising On Account Rejection By Government Of Karnataka On The Ground That The Claim Was Not Made In The Original Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri A.C.Raju, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R.Ramesh, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14A

claim made by the assessee had been rejected by the AO solely on the ground that no new claim can be made without filing revised return of income. In our considered opinion, the approach of the AO is not tenable in the light of judicial precedents on this issue. Recently ... assessment year 2009-10 on payment basis during the year under appeal on the ground that the claims were not made by filing the revised return of income. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer cannot stand the test of the law laid down by several High Courts

Anita Khanna, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

The appeals stands disposed off in the following manner:-

ITA 175/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.169-172/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Rakesh Khanna बनाम/ Central Circle-20 161B,Twin Towers Aaykar Bhavan Twin Towers Lane, Prabhadevi Vs. Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadpk-9771-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.173-176/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 To 2010-11) Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Anita Khanna बनाम/ Central Circle-20 161B,Twin Towers Aaykar Bhavan Twin Towers Lane, Prabhadevi Vs. Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadpk-9772-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ashok Rao,Ld.ARFor Respondent: M.C.Omi Ningshen & B.Srinivas, Ld
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

claim of the assessee, in our opinion, is not tenable since this was an un-abated assessment and the time limit for filing revised return of income had already expired since a long time back. ITA No. 175/Mum/2016 stands dismissed. 10. All the appeals stands disposed off in the following

Anita Khanna, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

The appeals stands disposed off in the following manner:-

ITA 173/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.169-172/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Rakesh Khanna बनाम/ Central Circle-20 161B,Twin Towers Aaykar Bhavan Twin Towers Lane, Prabhadevi Vs. Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadpk-9771-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.173-176/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 To 2010-11) Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Anita Khanna बनाम/ Central Circle-20 161B,Twin Towers Aaykar Bhavan Twin Towers Lane, Prabhadevi Vs. Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadpk-9772-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ashok Rao,Ld.ARFor Respondent: M.C.Omi Ningshen & B.Srinivas, Ld
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

claim of the assessee, in our opinion, is not tenable since this was an un-abated assessment and the time limit for filing revised return of income had already expired since a long time back. ITA No. 175/Mum/2016 stands dismissed. 10. All the appeals stands disposed off in the following

Rakesh Khanna, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

The appeals stands disposed off in the following manner:-

ITA 169/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.169-172/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2010-11 & 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Rakesh Khanna बनाम/ Central Circle-20 161B,Twin Towers Aaykar Bhavan Twin Towers Lane, Prabhadevi Vs. Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadpk-9771-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.173-176/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 To 2010-11) Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Anita Khanna बनाम/ Central Circle-20 161B,Twin Towers Aaykar Bhavan Twin Towers Lane, Prabhadevi Vs. Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 020 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadpk-9772-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ashok Rao,Ld.ARFor Respondent: M.C.Omi Ningshen & B.Srinivas, Ld
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

claim of the assessee, in our opinion, is not tenable since this was an un-abated assessment and the time limit for filing revised return of income had already expired since a long time back. ITA No. 175/Mum/2016 stands dismissed. 10. All the appeals stands disposed off in the following