← 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.

Madhya Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal
241 ITR 124 · 2000 · High Court
89
citing judgments

A penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied if an assessee files a revised return to buy peace and avoid litigation, and the revenue accepts this without objection.

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.

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

Mula Parisar Serva Seva Sangh, Sonai vs. Exemption Ward 1(1), Nsk, Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 632/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.632/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mula Parisar Serva Seva Vs. Exemption Ward 1(1), Sangh, Nashik. At Post- Sonal, Tal.- Newasa, Dist.- Ahmednagar- 414105. Pan : Aaatm7100K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mihir Bapat Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.01.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Ao/Cpc Has Erred In Not Allowing Credit For Tds Of Rs.1,18,77,593/- As Claimed In The Return Of Income & As Per 26As Of Rs.1,18,77,593/-. 2) Interest U/S 244A On Refund – Not Grated By A.O. 3) Ao/Cpc Has Erred In Not Providing Any Reasons In Not Allowing Tds Claim Of Rs.1,18,77,593/-.

For Appellant: Shri Mihir BapatFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 244A

contractors after receiving the same from the sugarcane factory who deducted TDS u/s 194C of the IT Act. The assessee trust has furnished its revised return of income on 30.03.2019 declaring NIL income, although refund of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) of Rs.1,18,77,593/- was claimed. The above ... revised return was processed determining Rs.Nil income. However, the credit of TDS was not allowed by CPC which was claimed by the assessee as refund. 4. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Coimbatore dismissed the first appeal filed by the assessee. It is this

Income Tax Officer, Chennai vs. Sanguine Media Limited, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 480/CHNY/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1594/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Sanguine Media Limited Ito बनाम/ Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-20(5) Chandran Nagar Main Road, Chennai Vs. Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-2217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.480/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito M/S. Sanguine Media Limited बनाम/ Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-10(6) Chennai Chandran Nagar Main Road, Vs. Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-2217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Mangla (Ca) (Virtual)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla (CA) (Virtual)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

been controverted by Ld. CIT-DR. It has been stated that the assessee continues to claim higher depreciation in subsequent years and has not revised return of income for this year or subsequent years revising the claim of depreciation. Another argument raised by Ld. AR that the assessee

Sanguine Media Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1594/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1594/Chny/2023 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Sanguine Media Limited Ito बनाम/ Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-20(5) Chandran Nagar Main Road, Chennai Vs. Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-2217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.480/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रण वष9 / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito M/S. Sanguine Media Limited बनाम/ Plot No.135A, 1St Floor, Non-Corporate Ward-10(6) Chennai Chandran Nagar Main Road, Vs. Chrompet, Chennai-600 044. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecs-2217-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Mangla (Ca) (Virtual)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla (CA) (Virtual)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

been controverted by Ld. CIT-DR. It has been stated that the assessee continues to claim higher depreciation in subsequent years and has not revised return of income for this year or subsequent years revising the claim of depreciation. Another argument raised by Ld. AR that the assessee

ACIT, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad vs. Hinduja National Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 235/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.235/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) The Assistant M/S. Hinduja National Power Commissioner Of Income Vs. Corporation Ltd. Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aabch2426D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.A. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri K. A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(iia)Section 32ASection 92C

they are to be literally construed, more particularly in a case of exemption sought by an assessee. 9. In such a situation, filing a revised return under section 139(5) of the IT Act claiming carrying forward of losses subsequently would not help the assessee. In the present case ... assessee filed its original return under section 139(1) and not under section 139(3). Therefore, the Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under Section 139(1) and cannot transform it into

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. Vasudeva Realtors Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 729/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita No.729 & 755/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sidhi Jewellers, Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad.. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.750 & 751/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Sidhi Jewellers, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward 6(1), Hyderabad. Pan No.Aagfs4330P. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S. Ramarao, Advocate. रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148A

assessment year under question, where the said bank account has not been considered. Further, the assessee has Page 12 of 29 filed revised return on 08.08.2022 and claims that bank account held with Andhra Bank has been considered in the books of accounts. If we go by the original return ... income filed by the assessee on 01.10.2015 and revised return filed by the assessee on 08.08.2022 for the assessment year under consideration, there is huge difference between loss declared by the assessee and from the above, it is undisputedly clear that the books of accounts submitted by the assessee