← 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, Bhubaneswar vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technolosy, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 217/CTK/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.266, 162&217/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-07&2005-06) Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2), Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Bhubaneswar, Odisha 384, Kiit Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024, Odisha "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatk 3103 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.108&294/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05&2006-07) Acit, Circle-2(2), Vs. Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Bhubaneswar, Odisha Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, 384, Kiit Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024, Odisha "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatk 3103 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.27&42/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-05 & 2006-07) Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2), Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Bhubaneswar, Odisha 384, Kiit Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024, Odisha "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatk 3103 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh,Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: & Co No.42&27/Ctk/2014 These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh,CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 254

jurisdiction on you. 7. Ld. AR filed letter dated 20.1.2011 in compliance to notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 22.12.2010 to treat the revised return filed on 5.3.2007 as a due compliance of return filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act & CO No.42&27/CTK/2014 and placed a copy

ACIT, Bhubaneswar vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (Kiit), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 108/CTK/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Aug 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.266, 162&217/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-07&2005-06) Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2), Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Bhubaneswar, Odisha 384, Kiit Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024, Odisha "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatk 3103 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.108&294/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05&2006-07) Acit, Circle-2(2), Vs. Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Bhubaneswar, Odisha Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, 384, Kiit Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024, Odisha "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatk 3103 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & Cross Objection No.27&42/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-05 & 2006-07) Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs. Acit, Circle-2(2), Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Bhubaneswar, Odisha 384, Kiit Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024, Odisha "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatk 3103 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh,Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: & Co No.42&27/Ctk/2014 These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh,CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 254

jurisdiction on you. 7. Ld. AR filed letter dated 20.1.2011 in compliance to notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 22.12.2010 to treat the revised return filed on 5.3.2007 as a due compliance of return filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act & CO No.42&27/CTK/2014 and placed a copy

DCIT, Chennai vs. Apa Engineering (P) Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1294/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1294/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Apa Engineering (P) Ltd., Income Tax, Vs. Unit 1, Jem & Jewellery Complex, Corporate Circle 1(1), Mepz-Sez Tambaram, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Aacca9455C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Smt. Veni S. Raj, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 21.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Deduction To The Tune Of ₹.49.64 Lakhs Under Section 10A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The 2

For Appellant: Smt. Veni S. Raj, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, C.A
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14A

auto parts. The assessee filed its return of income on 08.09.2011 admitting total income of ₹.2,03,900/-. Subsequently, the assessee has filed a revised return admitting an income of ₹.51,44,922/- The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 21.03.2014 by assessing the total

Odisha Power Generation Corporation Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. CIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 216/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.216/Ctk/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) M/S Odisha Power Generation Vs. Cit, Bhubaneswar, 7Th Corporation Ltd., Floor, Fortune Tower, Bhubaneswar- 751023 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaco 1759 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Dillip Ku. Mohanty & Shri Bhagaban Panda, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh,Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Company Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit, Bhubaneswar, Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010 & Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. For That The Notice Issued By The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar (Cit) Under Section 263 Of The I.T. Act, 196L (The Act) Are Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That The Order Dated 24.03.2014 Passed By The Learned Cit Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law, Void Ab Initio & Is Liable To Be Cancelled.. 3. For That The Cit Has Erred In Invoking His Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Satisfying The Pre-Conditions Necessary For Assumption Of Such Jurisdiction & Therefore The Order U/S. 263 Are Liable To Be Set Aside Only On This Ground. 4. For That The Finding Of The Cit In The Order U /S. 263 In Respect Of The Two Issues/ Grounds Are Nothing But A Direction To The Ld. A.O. For Substituting His Own Opinion With That Of The Assessing Officer Or For Making A Fishing & Roving Enquiry Are Not A Case Of Erroneous Order & Nevertheless, It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. The Order

For Appellant: Shri Dillip Ku. MohantyFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh,CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

filed the return of income electronically for the assessment year 2009-2010 on 29.9.2009, with total income at Nil. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 7.5.2010 disclosing total income of Rs.62,94,53,484/- and the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated