← 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

Income Tax Officer-Ward-4(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Hanuman Texnit Industries Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2760/KOL/2013[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2760/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito, Ward-4(2), Vs. M/S Hanuman Texnit P-7, Chowringhee Square, Industries Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 8Th Floor, Nicco House, 2, Hare Kolkata-700001 Street, Kolkata-1 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach 6426 J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A. Sallong Yaden, Adl.Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Dangi, Fca सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 19/12/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.08.2013, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Kolkata In Appeal No.231/Cit(A)-Iv/1112, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessment Was Framed By Jcit (Osd), Circle-4, Kolkata U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Dangi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Sallong Yaden, Adl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 80I

dated 22-9-2009 without claiming deduction u/s.80IE of the Act. The assessee claimed the deduction u/s.80IE of the Act subsequently by filing the revised return of income on 7th November, 2009. Accordingly, the AO observed that the audit report in Form No.10CCB was not filed along with the original ... claimed in the original return of income due to mistake but the same M/s Hanuman Texnit Industries Ltd. was claimed in the revised return which was filed within the due dates as specified u/s.139(5) of the Act. The assessee further submitted that as per CBDT Notification SO No.866

Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 10(1), Mumbai

ITA 7454/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7454/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Wockhardt Hospitals Limited Addl. Cit-10(1) Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Kurla Room No.454, Aayakar Bhavan Vs. Complex, Bandra (E),Mumbai-400 051. M.K. Road,Mumbai-20. Pan:Aaacw 3342 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./7021/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit-10(1) Vs. M/S. Wockhardt Hospitals Limited Aayakar Bhavan,Mumbai. Mumbai-51. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Ms. Sunita Billa-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By:Shri Niraj Sheth सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 06.01.2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 25/09/2013 Of The Cit (A)-21,Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Year. Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Running Hospitals,Filed Its Return Of Income On 15/10/2010.A Revised Return Was Filed On 01/03/2012,Declaring Income At Rs. 8.19 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment,U/S.143 (3) Of The Act,On 28/03/2013, Determining Its Income At Rs.325.89 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Billa-DR
Section 143Section 254(1)Section 50B

cross appeals for the above-mentioned assessment year. Assessee-company,engaged in the business of running hospitals,filed its return of income on 15/10/2010.A revised return was filed on 01/03/2012,declaring income at Rs. 8.19 crores.The AO completed the assessment,u/s.143 (3) of the Act,on 28/03/2013, determining its income ... already been deducted from the liability side,that it had not made any claim in that regard in the original return, that in the revised return it made the claim about the disputed amount. 7.1.Before the FAA,the assessee made submissions referring to the closes