← 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

The Thane Zilla Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh Sahakari Patpedhi, Thane vs. ACIT Palghar Cir, Palghar, Mumbai

ITA 1249/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1249/Mum/2017,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1250/Mum/2017,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.: 2012-13 वष" The Thane Zilla Madhyamik Shikshak Acit Palghar Circle Sangh Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit Palghar. At.Saphale Post,Umbarpada, Taluka Vs. Palghar, Dist. Thane-401 102. Pan:Aaaat 9514 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Dr. A.K. Nayak-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah . सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/03/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2017 लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 02.01.2017 Of The Cit(A)- 3,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Above Mentioned Ay.S.It Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Credit Facilities To Its Members.The Details Of Dates Of Filing Of Returns, Returned Incomes,Dates Of Assessment Etc. Can Be Summarised As Under: Ay. Roi Filed On Returned Income Assessment Date Assessed Income 2008-09 29.09.2008 Nil 04.12.2015 Rs.97,80P,811/- 2012-13 28.09.2012 Nil 20.03.2015 Rs.1,57,72,930/-

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Dr. A.K. Nayak-DR
Section 143Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 80P

/M/17(08-09&12-13) The Thane zilla Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh coffee estate for capital gains, but later, filed a revised return seeking exclusion of the said sum on the premise that the trees which were cut and sold by the assessee had been planted by the previous owner

Eastern Coalfilelds Ltd., Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Asansol

In the result the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 467/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 May 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 467/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Eastern Coalfields Ltd. -Vs.- A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Dist. Burdwan Asansol. [Pan : Aaace 7590 E] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.01.2014 Of C.I.T.(A)-Asansol Relating To A.Y.2006-07. 2. This Appeal Arises Out Of An Order Passed Determining The Value Of Fringe Benefit For The Purpose Of Payment Of Fringe Benefit Tax Under The Provision Of Section 115We(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act).

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT(DR)
Section 115W

Rs.22,24,52,306/-. 4. The CIT(A) upheld the order of AO for the reason that the assessee did not file the revised return of the value of fringe benefit as contemplated u/s 115WD(4) of the Act. According to CIT(A) as laid down ... Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) vs CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC) no claim can be entertained without the assessee filing a revised return. The CIT(A) accordingly upheld the order of AO for the reason that revised return of value of fringe benefit was not filed