“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

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

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

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

Rachna Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2531/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

despite the fact that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued subsequent to the filing of valid revised return. 3. That on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.29,71,941/- under section ... income chargeable to tax under the head Income from house property, Income from capital gain, Agricultural income and Income from other sources. 3. A revised return was filed on 23-09-2016, declaring taxable income of Rs. 68,92,570/in which she had offered the amount of short-term capital

Rachna Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5418/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Ahmedabad Kankaria Adarian, Ahmedabad vs. CPC, Bengaluru, Jurisdiction AO : the ITO Ward-1(Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 601/AHD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234A

registered u/s.12A of the Act. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.1,52,00,000/- u/s.11(1A) of the Act, while filing the revised return of income. The CPC, Bengaluru issued notice dated 12.02.202, whereby the adjustment of Rs.1,52,00,000/- was proposed on account of reason being not shown ... cost of the new asset was shown in Schedule EC which is greater than Schedule AI. Owing to the mismatch, the revised return was processed on 19.03.2021 and the CPC denied the claim under section 11(1) of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A), confirmed the order of the Ld.CPC

Anil Kumar Pruthi, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 691/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmananil Kumar Pruthi, Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Jagan Nath Ward-1, Hisar. Pruthi, Vs. 165, Sector-15A, Hisar-125001, Haryana. Pan:Aaspp4439J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 133(5)Section 143(1)Section 154

assessee can revise its return of income within the prescribed time limit u/s 133(5) of the Act but in this case, no such revised return has been filed by the assessee and, hence, application claiming rectification of mistake u/s 154 of the Act claiming exemption for whole of leave

Aditi Gupta, Ludhiana vs. DDIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 567/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Satish Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(5)Section 234A

sole ground of appeal relates to non-grant of TDS credit and as against the refund of Rs. 47,070/- claimed in the revised return of income, creating an additional demand of Rs. 20,350/- including levy of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 2. During ... refund of Rs. 1,02,280/- was claimed while filing the return of income. Thereafter the assessee filed a revised return of income under section 139(5) declaring the total income at Rs. 22,08,120/- and determining the total tax liability at Rs. 4,98,933/- and TDS credit

Indian Chronicle Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal ofthe assessee is allowed

ITA 1275/AHD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1275/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Indian Chronicle Ltd. बनाम/ Ito Gujarat Samacharbhavan, Ward4(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Khanpur,Ahmedabad - 380001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci0793H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

finding that while in the facts of the case before the Hon’ble High Court the assessee was noted to have filed a revised return including therein calculation of Book Profits u/s 115JB of the Act and also filing Form No.,29B , the same was ITA No. 1275/Ahd/2012 [Indian Chronicle ... that both the acts could not have been done by the assessee as per law itself since the limitation prescribed in law for filing revised return and form No29B had expired by the time the assessee became aware of the lapse on its part during assessment proceedings. Ld.DR was unable

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru vs. Sri. Suresh S Kanaji, Bengaluru

ITA 484/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri H Shiva Prasad Reddy, IRSFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 195

were initiated through a notice issued on August 12, 2020. In response to the notice under Section 153C, the assessee filed a revised return, declaring an income of ₹2,26,80,170, as compared to ₹1,26,80,170 declared in the original return. 4.3 However, the AO found that ... reported as ₹4.93 crore. Additionally, a substantial Work-in-Progress (WIP) claim of ₹11.60 crore was made for AY 2017-18 in the last revised return filed in response to the notice under Section 153C of the Act, whereas no such WIP claim was made in the original or first

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru vs. Sri. Suresh S Kanaji, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 483/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri H Shiva Prasad Reddy, IRSFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 195

were initiated through a notice issued on August 12, 2020. In response to the notice under Section 153C, the assessee filed a revised return, declaring an income of ₹2,26,80,170, as compared to 1,26,80,170 declared in the original return. 4.3 However, the AO found that ... reported as ₹4.93 crore. Additionally, a substantial Work-in-Progress (WIP) claim of ₹11.60 crore was made for AY 2017-18 in the last revised return filed in response to the notice under Section 153C of the Act, whereas no such WIP claim was made in the original or first

Fortrea Scientific Private Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Mumbai

ITA 5701/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari &For Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 10A

Тахтап 491/446 ITR 1. The assessee furnished original return taking the benefit of section 10B and did not carry forward the loss. Thereafter, a revised return was filed foregoing the claim of deduction u/s 10B. The AO rejected the withdrawal of exemption under section 10B by holding that assessee ... Supreme Court was that in the original return of income, the assessee had claimed deduction under section 10B of the Act, whereas in the revised return filed under section 139(5) of the Act, assessee did not claim deduction under section 10B of the Act, and instead claimed benefit

Fortrea Scientific Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 11(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5678/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Section 10A

Ramboll India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-19(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1468/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaramboll India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 30, Mohan Singh Palace, Circle-19(1), Connaught Place, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aahcp8488M

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanveer, CIT DR

Section 92C

claim one- fifth as eligible for deduction under section 35DD of the Act vide letter dated 2-8-2021 as time limit for filing revised return for Assessment Year 2018-19 had already expired. This was not appreciated by the Learned AO as well as by the Learned

ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4050/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs Rajnil Sales Pvt. Ltd., Room No.91, 4Th Floor, Central Circle-30, New Delhi. 2B Grant Lane, Kolkata, West Bengal. Pan: Aabcr3491C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate & Ms Ragini Handa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pitambar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.03.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.320/15-16/2297 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 31.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Pitambar Das, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

under:- "2. The assessee is individual and as a sequel to the search and seizure operation was conducted on his premises, he filed revised return. The Assessing Officer framed assessment under section 144 of the Act on the basis of best judgement. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) accepted

M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6542/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)

return of income for the assessment year 2012-13 on 30.09.2012, declaring net income of Rs.892,55,17,190/-. Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 30.03.2014, declaring net income of Rs.888,27,30,850/-, wherein, inter alia, export turnover was increased to include export realization post

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Genpact India, Gurgaon

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6414/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)

Vipul Purshottamdas Thakkar, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 784/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah & Shri Rushin PatelFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 54B

filed earlier. This return of income, was admittedly filed beyond the due date of filing of return of income. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return under section 139(5) on March 30, 2014, claiming a deduction under section 54B amounting to Rs. 55,24,000/-. However, when ... section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A on March 17, 2015, he considered the income as per the return filed under section 153A instead of the revised return that had been filed later. The assessee then filed a rectification application on May 2, 2016, before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara

Saket Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 1112/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 5

accept it, but the A.O. had found it as not acceptable. Because, an assessee can claim deduction only by filing a revised return. In this case, the appellant has not filed the revised return for the A.Y.2018-19 and hence the claim of the revised income of the appellant

Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7445/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

sugar. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 29.09.2009, declaring loss. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 25.03.2011, again, showing loss of Rs.200,25,23,878/- and claimed TDS credit, not claimed in the original return of income

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 735/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7251/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 788/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &