← 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

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Bayer Pharmaceuticals P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed, that of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5100/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhbayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Bayer Polychem India Ltd.), Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Estate, Thane (W) -400607 Pan: Aabcb 3852F ...... Appellant Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax 10(3), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400020. .... Respondent The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 10(3), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400020. .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. Pan: Aaccb 2271M ...Respondent Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Bayer Polychem India Ltd.), Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Estate, Thane (W) -400607 Pan: Aabcb 3852F .... Appellant Vs. (Assessment Year 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 44A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's stand of not accepting of 3rd revised return filed u/s. 139(5) of the Income Tax, 1961. (Assessment Year 2004-05) 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... confirming the AO's stand of not considering the rectification of error carried out in the computation of total income along with 3rd revised return, on account of provision for leave encashment.” 3. In brief, the controversy in this appeal can be understood as follows. In this case, assessee company

Bayer Pharmaceuticals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 15(3), Mumbai

In the result, whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed, that of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3745/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singhbayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Bayer Polychem India Ltd.), Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Estate, Thane (W) -400607 Pan: Aabcb 3852F ...... Appellant Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax 10(3), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400020. .... Respondent The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 10(3), Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai 400020. .... Appellant Vs. M/S. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. Pan: Aaccb 2271M ...Respondent Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (Successor To Bayer Polychem India Ltd.), Bayer House, Central Avenue, Hiranandani Estate, Thane (W) -400607 Pan: Aabcb 3852F .... Appellant Vs. (Assessment Year 2004-05)

For Appellant: Shri Mayur KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Singh
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 44A

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's stand of not accepting of 3rd revised return filed u/s. 139(5) of the Income Tax, 1961. (Assessment Year 2004-05) 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... confirming the AO's stand of not considering the rectification of error carried out in the computation of total income along with 3rd revised return, on account of provision for leave encashment.” 3. In brief, the controversy in this appeal can be understood as follows. In this case, assessee company

Tata Condulting Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 3595/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.3595/Mum/2013 & 6786/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Tata Consulting Engineers The Additional Limited (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tce Consulting Engineers Tax Range 7(3) Limited) Matulya Aayakar Bhavan, Centre A, 249, Senapati M. Karve Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct0772E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer Assessee By: Capt. Pradeep Arya सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2016 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Two Appeals Against The Order Dated 15.02.2013 & 09.08.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since Common Question Of Law & Facts

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer
Section 120(4)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

allowing the claim for depreciation on software for earlier years amounting to Rs.1,43,45,844/- claimed in the Revised Return of Income on the ground that the same pertains to earlier years and is not allowable during the current year. Your appellant submits that the AO be directed ... that he had rejected the claim only on the ground that the assessee did not make the claim in its return of income or revised return of income, that the FAA had not examined the facts of the case and had summarily dismissed the ground that claim can made before

Tata Consulting Engineers Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG OSD (7), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be Allowed

ITA 6786/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.3595/Mum/2013 & 6786/Mum/2012 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) बनाम/ Tata Consulting Engineers The Additional Limited (Formerly Known As Commissioner Of Income Vs. Tce Consulting Engineers Tax Range 7(3) Limited) Matulya Aayakar Bhavan, Centre A, 249, Senapati M. Karve Road, Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400013 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabct0772E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer Assessee By: Capt. Pradeep Arya सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2016 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Two Appeals Against The Order Dated 15.02.2013 & 09.08.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively. Since Common Question Of Law & Facts

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas & Srihari Iyer
Section 120(4)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

allowing the claim for depreciation on software for earlier years amounting to Rs.1,43,45,844/- claimed in the Revised Return of Income on the ground that the same pertains to earlier years and is not allowable during the current year. Your appellant submits that the AO be directed ... that he had rejected the claim only on the ground that the assessee did not make the claim in its return of income or revised return of income, that the FAA had not examined the facts of the case and had summarily dismissed the ground that claim can made before