← 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

Jagdish Vidyalankar, Haridwar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3)(1), Haridwar

Appeal is allowed

ITA 128/DDN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun30 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 128/Ddn/2019 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Jagdish Vidyalankar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 348,, Alankar Bhawan, Jwalapur, Ward-1(3)(1), Haridwar, Uttarkhand-249408 Haridwar-249408 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajpv0551A Assessee By : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Cit(A), Dehradun’S Order Dated 13.06.2019 In Case No. 10223/Cit(A)/Ddn/2017-18, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

Learned senior counsel on the other hand has invited the tribunal’s attention to the fact that the assessee had duly filed his revised return on 30.07.2016; and, therefore, both the lower authorities could not have simply ignored the same in a summary manner. We wish to reiterate here that ... assessee’s revised return is admittedly not in issue in both the lower proceedings. We are accordingly of the considered view in light of PCIT Vs. Babubhai Ramabhai Patel (2017) 84 taxmann.com 32 (Guj.) that once a revised return filed within the prescribed time, the original one would not survive

Surender Kumar Bhojwani, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Intl. Taxtion -1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2086/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Mar 2026AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

though the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act was not raised by the assessee in his original return of income or the revised return, but it can still be raised, as the relevant material was available on record before the appellate authorities, i.e., CIT(A) and the Tribunal ... considered the same. Our aforesaid view, that even if the claim made by the assessee does not form part of the original return or revised return, it can still be raised, if relevant material is available on record before the appellate authorities, i.e., CIT(A) and the Tribunal by themselves

Sunitha Malu, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1921/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 57

delay of 14 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the case on merits. 5. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed its revised return of income for the AY 2018-19 on 26/12/2018, declaring an income of Rs.23,05,820/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected

Electronics & Quality Development Centre, Gandhinagar vs. CPC, Bengaluru Current Juris. -the Dy.CIT, (Exemption), Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1684/AHD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Ld. Pcit, Which Was Pending Consideration. Therefore Assessee Filed Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed Stating That The Ld. Cit(A) Does Not Have The Power To Condone The Delay, Thereby Confirmed The Addition Made By Cpc.

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

Form No. 10B. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee had e-filed the audit report in Form No. 10B along with the revised return of income filed under section 139(5) of the Act on 31.12.2022 and that the said audit report was already available on the records ... aforesaid binding judicial precedents and having regard to the fact that the audit report in Form No. 10B was duly filed along with the revised return and was available on record prior to issuance of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, we hold that the denial of exemption

Income Tax Officer-17(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anantam, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8819/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

Anantam and hence held the same to be not genuine. The Ld. AO also noted that the VAT return submitted by the assessee are revised returns and not original returns which were revised on 29.11.2018 and 30.11.2018 which was two years after the transaction of sale and purchase were made ... which is not like a regular business activity and the assessee has also not furnished the original VAT return and merely copy of the revised return was enclosed. The Ld. AO made an addition u/s 69C of the Act on the entire purchase value of Rs.7,94,48,640/- along

Income Tax Officer-17(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anantam, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8818/MUM/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

Anantam and hence held the same to be not genuine. The Ld. AO also noted that the VAT return submitted by the assessee are revised returns and not original returns which were revised on 29.11.2018 and 30.11.2018 which was two years after the transaction of sale and purchase were made ... which is not like a regular business activity and the assessee has also not furnished the original VAT return and merely copy of the revised return was enclosed. The Ld. AO made an addition u/s 69C of the Act on the entire purchase value of Rs.7,94,48,640/- along

Hamdard Laboratories Inida, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle(E) 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8826/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2023-24] Hamdard Laboratories India, Dcit, Circle(Exempt), Hamdard Building, 2A/3, Asaf Civic Centre, New Delhi Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 Vs Pan-Aaath0842H Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By Shri S.R Mehta, Ca Respondent/Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Date Of Hearing 19.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 Order Per Amitabh Shukla, Am

Section 10Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

income while claiming exemption u/s 10(23C)(iv) of the Act. The assessee had, pursuant to a notice from the Revenue, had filed a revised return under section 139(5) on 28.12.2023. The CPC, Bangalore issued an intimation dated 18.11.2024, determining taxable income of the assessee at Rs.112

Sharanjit Kaur, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 237/CHANDI/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.237/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Smt. Sharanjit Kaur Ito Ward-2 (1) बनाम/ Vs. H. No. 2359, Sector – 23C, Aaykar Bhawan, Sector – 17 Chandigarh - 160023 Chandigarh - 160017 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acwpk-0060-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri M. R. Sharma (Advocate) & Om Datt Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Laliet Kumar () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 09-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 23-03-2022. The Prime Grievance Of The Assessee Is Denial Of Deduction U/S 54F Under The Head Long-Term Capital Gains

For Appellant: S/Shri M. R. Sharma (Advocate) & Om DattFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 118Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

Rs.84,940/- which represent difference in original returned income and income returned during reassessment proceedings. Since the assessee failed to file revised return u/s 139(5), this amount was added to assessee’s income. 2.3 The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of Ld. AO on the ground that

Ashok Kumar, Sirsa vs. ITO, W-1, Sirsa, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/CHANDI/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Me Is That The Authorities Below Erred In Not Granting Credit Of Tcs As Reflected In Form 26As, Merely On The Ground That The Same Was Not Claimed In The Return Of Income. The Assessee Has Demonstrated That The Tcs Stands Duly Reflected In The Annual Tax Statement (Form 26As).

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal & Shri Sifatpreet Singh, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 254

that any claim for deduction or relief which is not made in the return of income cannot be entertained otherwise than by filing a revised return and therefore, the action of the lower authorities deserves to be upheld. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material

Coromandel International Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 738/HYD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.738/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Coromandel International Vs. Dcit, Limited, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacc7852K (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Sp Chidambaram, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 02/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Coromandel International Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 24/02/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. Page 1 Of 17 Coromandel International Limited Vs. Dcit 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd.(supra), holding that a fresh claim cannot be entertained without filing a revised return. It was further submitted that the restriction laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) applies only to the powers

Mahesh Vishindas Chandwani, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Circle 29(2), Mumbai

In the result the Ground No

ITA 6777/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2026AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

brief facts the case is that the assessee filed the return by declaring\ntotal income Rs.5,89,04,970/-. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return and\ndeclared the total income Rs.5,88,92,030/-. The assessee's case was selected for\nscrutiny under CASS and notice u/sec

Tathagat, New Delhi vs. AO Centralized Processing Center, Income Tax Depatment Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7273/DEL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

section (1) of Section 139 of the Act, whereas, in the facts of the said case the assessee filed such undertaking along with the revised return under Sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the Act and in such facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the twin conditions

Tathagat, New Delhi vs. AO Centralized Processing Center, Income Tax Depatment Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7272/DEL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

section (1) of Section 139 of the Act, whereas, in the facts of the said case the assessee filed such undertaking along with the revised return under Sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the Act and in such facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the twin conditions

Tathagat, New Delhi vs. AO Central Processing Center, Income Tax Department

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7271/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 11Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)

section (1) of Section 139 of the Act, whereas, in the facts of the said case the assessee filed such undertaking along with the revised return under Sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the Act and in such facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the twin conditions

Ambe Marble, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(1), Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4722/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ambe Marble Ito Ward 36(1) Delhi New C/O B-50 Lgf South Vs Delhi Extension Part-Ii, New Delhi Pan No. Abbfa5852G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Invoices NO. Vat Tax Labour) made by the assess firm during the A.Y.2017-18(Pg.124-140) (iii) Copy of VAT and CST returns along with the revised returns for A.Y. 2017-18(Pg.141-315) (iv) Copy of cash book for A.Y.2017-18(Pg.317-368) 8 (v) Copy of month wise sale made during the year

Subhash Baburao Aher, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Nashik

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 240/PUN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.240 & 231 /Pun/2026 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subhash Baburao Aher, Vs. Income Tax Officer Type A-01 Deepraj Row House, Ward 3(1), Nashik Untwadi Cidco, Nashik-422009 Pan: Aavpa6171D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: CA Abhilasha Pawar (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 133ASection 147Section 270ASection 80CSection 80G

filing the income tax return, who misguided the appellant. It is submitted that the wrong claims were made by the tax consultant in the revised return by misguiding many employees in the company, MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED. Who had no knowledge of the income tax provisions after becoming aware of this

Subhash Baburao Aher, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Nashik

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 231/PUN/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.240 & 231 /Pun/2026 Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subhash Baburao Aher, Vs. Income Tax Officer Type A-01 Deepraj Row House, Ward 3(1), Nashik Untwadi Cidco, Nashik-422009 Pan: Aavpa6171D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: CA Abhilasha Pawar (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 133ASection 147Section 270ASection 80CSection 80G

filing the income tax return, who misguided the appellant. It is submitted that the wrong claims were made by the tax consultant in the revised return by misguiding many employees in the company, MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED. Who had no knowledge of the income tax provisions after becoming aware of this

Sharp Garuda Farm Equipments Pvt.Ltd, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3394/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T.Mythili, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 274Section 37

assessee filed its return of income on 12.01.2021 declaring a total income of Rs.14,49,74,090/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 31.03.2021 declaring a total income of Rs.14,38,20,240/-. In the revised return, the assessee had claimed education cess of Rs.11 ... draft assessment order issued during the assessment proceedings. It was further contended that the claim of deduction of education cess made in the revised return was based on various judicial pronouncements of different High Courts and therefore the claim was a bonafide one. Accordingly, the assessee pleaded that the proposed

Communidade of Chicalim, Chicalim vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Panaji

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 207/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.207/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 ) Comunidade Of Chicalim, Vs Acit Circle 2(1), Ground Floor, St Xavier Aaykar Bhavan, . Church Building, Edc, Patto, Chicalim-403802, Panjim South Goa,Goa. Goa-403001. Pan .No. Aaaabc0196P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 139(5)Section 57Section 74

therefore such losses are not admissible and the claim of setoff was denied. On the second issue, in the assessment proceedings, the assessee filed revised return on 21.11.2018 after issuance of notice u/sec142(1) of the Act, were the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.93 ... delay. The A.O dealt on the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act and observes that in the absence of filing a revised return within the time allowed, the claim cannot be accepted and deduction u/sec57(iv) of the Act is denied and is rejected. Finally the A.O. disallowed

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Boeing India Pvt. Ltd

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/586/2025HC Delhi16 Mar 2026

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

For Appellant: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC, Ms. Zehra KhanFor Respondent: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Sr Advocate with Ms
Section 143(2)Section 144CSection 260A

MIPL. 41.3. The original return of income was not revised even though the assessment proceedings were pending. The last date for filing the revised returns was 31-3-2008, after the amalgamation order. 41.4. A search and seizure proceeding was conducted in respect of the Mahagun group, including MRPL