← 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, Circle-1(2), Cuttack vs. Paradeep Port Trust, Jagatsinghpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue i

ITA 356/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.395/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.356/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.332/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Paradip Port Trust, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Cit Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: Out Of These Three Appeals, The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

crores, however, the AO again added same to the total income of the assessee. The AR of the assessee further stated that in the revised return filed by the assessee the observation of the audit has been accepted and additional income has been offered for taxation. 22.2 Contra

M/S Parapit Port Trust, Cuttack vs. Addl. CIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the revenue i

ITA 332/CTK/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.395/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.356/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Vs. Paradip Port Trust, Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.332/Ctk/2013 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Paradip Port Trust, Vs. Acit, Circle-2(1), Cuttack Paradeep, Jagatsinghpur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaalp 0055 A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Cit Dr निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 09/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: Out Of These Three Appeals, The Revenue Has Filed Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

crores, however, the AO again added same to the total income of the assessee. The AR of the assessee further stated that in the revised return filed by the assessee the observation of the audit has been accepted and additional income has been offered for taxation. 22.2 Contra

Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology(Kiit), Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle2(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeals of the assessee i

ITA 266/CTK/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Jul 2017AY 2006-07

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

Edusys Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bhubaneswar

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 406/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.406/Ctk/2015 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Edusys Services Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Cirlce-1(1), M/S Suresh & Co., Chartered Bhubaneswar Accountants, #43/16, Srinidhi, 1St Floor, Surveyor Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560004 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 3423 B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) धनधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.S.Vivek, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/07/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Passed In Itappeal No.0022/2014-15, Dated 10.06.2015, U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Stating That There Is No Cause Of Grievance Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer Failing To Note That Even A Non-Action By The Ao Which Was Supposed To Have Done Calls For Review (As Decided By Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Bhagat Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.-Appeal No.1169 Of 2006). 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Order Of The Ao In Considering The Dividend Distribution Tax Applicable For The Assessment Year 2012-13 In The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Also In Computing & In Levying Dividend Distribution Tax (Ddt) Liability Over & Above The Tax Actually Due The Basis Along With Interest Thereon. 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Stating That The Appellant Should Have Got The Challan Rectified By Filing Revised Return Or By Making Data Entry- Correction Failing To Appreciate That The Assessee Had In Fact Made An Application For Data Entry Correction In The Challan Which Was Not Acted Upon By The Respected Officers.”

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Vivek, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, CITDR
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

basis along with Interest thereon. 2. The CIT(A) has erred in stating that the appellant should have got the challan rectified by filing revised return or by making data entry- correction failing to appreciate that the assessee had in fact made an application for Data Entry Correction