“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

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

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

ITA 764/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 &

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

Bajaj Hindustan Sugar & Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5806/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

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

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

A.B. Sugars Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

Amitabh Bachchan [2016]69 taxmann.com 170[SC] viii) Where no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer in passing assessment order after accepting revised return filed by the assessee. Commissioner was well within his powers under Section 263 to direct fresh assessment Virbhadra singh (HUF) vs PCIT [2017] 80 ;uinann.com ... Amitabh Bachchan [2016]69 taxmann.com 170[SC] viii) Where no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer in passing assessment order after accepting revised return filed oy the assessee, Commissioner was well within his powers under Section 263 to direct fresh assessment Virbhadra singh (HUF) vs PCIT [2017] 86 Taxmann.com

A.B. Sugars Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 299/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

Kavita Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(5), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6243/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)

authority grossly erred in framing the assessment order on the basis of Original Return filed of appellant assessee and not on the basis of Revised Return. The learned CIT (A) has also erred in confirming the assessment order framed on the basis of Original Return. 3. That the learned assessing ... authority erred in not accepting income of the assessee declared by her in Revised Return. The learned assessing authority further erred in determining the total income at Rs. 22.58,470/-. The learned CIT (A) has also erred in confirming the said income and in not accepting the income

Ashwin Kumar Agarwal, Cuttack vs. DCIT Asmnt Circle-2(1)Cuttack, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 507/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

long-term capital gains on shares in terms of Section 10(38) of the Act. During the course of scrutiny 16 assessment, a revised return was filed by the Assessee claiming the above exemption. After the AO rejected the plea, the Assessee went before ... adhere the principles of natural justice went to the root of the matter. Also, the CBDT circular that permitted to the Assessee to file revised returns if he omitted to make a claim was also not noticed by the AO. 6. In the considered view the Court, the ITAT committed

Tatiparti Satyanarayana, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 357/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Dec 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.357/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Tatiparti Satyanarayana V. Ito – Ward – 1(1) D.No. 47-15-10, Shop No. 201A Income Tax Office V.R.C. Complex, Dwaraka Nagar Pratyakshakar Bhavan Visakhapatnam – 530016 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Acgpt5353F] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 23(2)

opportunity to the assessee to file its objection before confirming the additions. Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee ought to have filed a revised return by declaring the annual value as NIL with respect to self-occupied property. In the absence of filing of revised return of income

Matam Lathamma, Secunderabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anakapalle

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

ITA 225/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A.225/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Matam Lathamma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward-1, Pan: Adypl2367A Anakapalle. (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)

individual working for NTPC. The assessee has filed her original return of income on 29/07/2017. Subsequently, on 30/05/2018, the assessee filed her revised return of income admitting a rental income of Rs. 2,92,320/- under the head ‘income from other sources’. The return was processed and Intimation ... Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the assessee dated 21/11/2024 and submitted that while filing the revised return of income, the assessee admitted the rental income of Rs. 2,92,320/- under head ‘income from other sources’ instead of reporting the same under

M/S. University of Madras, Chennai vs. DCIT, Exemption, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2170/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 10Section 119(2)(b)

assessee to unjust tax by holding that no return was filed either as a “Regular Assessee” or as an “Association of Person” merely because revised return was not filed under Section 139(4) of the Act, within a time specified under Section 139 of the Act. 23. The last date

DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Sivasubramanian, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and all the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1243/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Bleshri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1208/Chny/2024 & C.O.No.35/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1208/Chny/2024) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-2019. The Assistant Commissioner P. Selvaraj, Of Income Tax, Vs. 5/68,Kurumbapatty, Central Circle 2, Pavithram Po Trichy Karur 639 002. Pan: Boips 1370G Respondent/Cross Objector Appellant आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1212/Chny/2024 & C.O.No.36/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1212/Chny/2024) िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-2019. The Assistant Commissioner K.N. Prabhu, Of Income Tax, Vs. 23, Bharathi Nagar, Central Circle 2, Karur 639 002 Trichy Pan: Aczpp 6832G Appellant Respondent/Cross Objector

Section 132Section 153C

voluntarily offered a sum of Rs.3,61,35,890/- as their income for the F.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 and filed revised returns for all 77 firms. In the course of assessment, post search, additional sum of Rs.2,76,44,321/- was considered as income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. K.N.Prabhu, Karur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and all the COs of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1212/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 153C

Cholan Auto Finance, Karur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle 2), Trichy, Tiruchirappalli

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1155/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriand Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1155 & 1156/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2018-2019 M/S. Cholan Auto Finance, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 43, Padma Tower, 3Rd Floor, Central Circle 2, Covai Road, Trichy. Karur 639 002. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1191 & 1192/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2018-2019 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Cholan Auto Finance, Income Tax, 43, Padma Tower, 3Rd Floor, Vs Central Circle 2, . Covai Road, Trichy. Karur 639 002. [Pan : Aagfc 1043B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri N.V.Balaji, Advocate Department By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2024 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: These Cross Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai [Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

group voluntarily offered a sum of Rs.3,61,35,890/- as their income for the F.Y.2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 and filed revised returns for all 77 firms. In the course of assessment, post search additional sum of Rs.2,76,44,321/- was considered as income of the assessee ... since inception under their respective PAN. The Ld.AR further submitted that when the first search was conducted, all the 77 firms filed revised returns offering additional income and while completing the assessment, further additions were made in the hands of all 77 firms. The Ld.AR drew our attention

The ITO (Exemption), Ward- 2, Ahmedabad vs. Shree Umiya Education Trust, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 17/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

along with Audit Report in Form 10B claiming exemption u/s. 11 of the Act and declaring Nil Income. Thereafter the assessee filed a Revised Return of Income along with the Audit report in Form 10B on 11-03-2016 for claiming credit of cost of acquisition of securities. Intimation ... alongwith Form 10B. Later, CPC sent communication to assessee. Assessee again filed return of income on 11.03.2016 alongwith Form 108. This revised return was processed by CPC u/s 143(1) on 11.10.2016. Vide intimation order u/s 143(1), CPC I.T.A No. 17/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 3 Shree Umiya

Shri Madvirashiv Shivogimandir Samsthe Shivogimandir, Bagalkot vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Kalaburagi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1402/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Ashok A. Kulkarni, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 154Section 250

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Hon’ble NFAC failed to appreciate that the revised return of income which was accompanied with Form No.10B replaced the original return of income and as such consequence the appellant had complied with ... ought to have held that the filing of Form 10BB instead of Form No.10B was a procedural irregularity which was rectified by filing a revised return of income. 4. The Hon’ble NFAC have regard to the facts of the case ought to have held that there was no delay

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bennett Property Holdings Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 556/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A(2)Section 32(1)Section 72A(2)Section 72A(4)

books of account of the Assessee, the Assessee has also correspondingly claimed the said amount of advance tax and TDS in its revised return of income. Copy of Form 26AS of the 8 amalgamating companies and the demerged company were always available with the Revenue. The Assessee has also files

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, claim of deduction was not allowed

ITA 3178/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Bleita No. 3175/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09) Dcit (Cc)-8(3), Mumbai 63 Moons Technologies Limited Cts No. 256-257, F.T. Tower, Vs Suren Road, Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai-400093. Pan: Aaacf 5737 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 40

careful consideration, we note that in this case, the assessee has claimed premium/interest payable at maturity of Zero Coupon Convertible Bonds(ZCCB) in the revised return of income. In the accounts of the assessee the said amount was debited to the share premium account. But, in the computation of income ... Zero Coupon Convertible Bonds raised by the company in financial year 2006-07 to the extent of INR 45,30,80,094 as per revised return of income filed on 23/11/2011. The assessee has claimed such amount as a deduction on the ground that the fiability of payment has already

DCIT (CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. 63 Moons Technologies Ltd Q, Mumbai

Accordingly, claim of deduction was not allowed

ITA 3175/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT/DR

Section 132Section 14ASection 153ASection 40

Hybrid Financial Services Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3093/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K. Chandramouli, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

Appeals) erred in not allowing the additional claim of deduction of Bad Debts filed during the course of assessment other than filing a Revised Return 2 Each one of the above ground is without prejudice to the other” 2.1 We note that registry has noted a delay of 103 days ... case are that assessee filed its return of income on 23.09.2014, reporting a loss of Rs. 1,16,70,751/-. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return of income on 29.09.2014 declaring Nil income and claiming the same loss as per the original return. During the year under consideration, assessee has shown

Shri Mahipal, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1822/DEL/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 20000-01 Shri Mahipal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Vijay Kumar Gupta, Ward-Ii(4), Advocate, Opp. Jain Mandir, Faridabad Main Bazar, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad -121004. Pan: Atvpp9291R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vijay Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 Order

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 282

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

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Patna vs. Suman Kumar, Gaya

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 174/PAT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.174/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Acit, Central Circle-1, Patna…..…………………...........................……….……Appellant Vs. Suman Kumar……….…………....……...…………………………………....…..Respondent S/O Late Madan Singh, Vill-Baijnathpur, P.O-Wazir Gangj, Distt- Gaya (Bihar)-805131. [Pan: Arxpk3461F]

Section 132(1)Section 250Section 69A

that Rs.30,00,000/-, as undisclosed income from sand mining, could not be submitted in a I.T.A. No.174/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Suman Kumar revised return due to some technical issue. However, the Assessing Officer added this amount u/s 69A of the Act. 1.1 Before