“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

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

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

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

M/S. Kanak Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1219/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarmam/S Kanak Projects Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata Salarpuria Jajodia @ Co.7, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kol-72. Pan No. : Aabck1255F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Pandey, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 09/09/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm : This Appeal By The Assessee Arises Against The Order Dated 09.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total Income Of ₹99906480. The Assessee Subsequently Filed A Revised Return Declaring The Same Income. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Statutory Notices Under Section 142(1) Were Served. In Response, The Assessee Filed Audited Financial Statements, Computation Of Income, Details Of Receipts & Expenses & Explanations As Called For. From The Tax Audit

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

assessee filed its original return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring a total income of ₹99906480. The assessee subsequently filed a revised return declaring the same income. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under section 142(1) were served. In response, the assessee filed

Debashis Das, Kolkata vs. ACIT-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 947/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.947/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Debashis Das………………………………………................................……….…Appellant Uttara Tritiya Housing Complex, Action Area-Ii, New Town, Near City Center-2, W.B– 700156. [Pan: Aixpd81639Q] Vs. Acit, International Taxaion-1(1), Kolkata ..L..….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nishant Thakkar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 08, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi For Assessment Year 2015–16. The Ld. Cit(A) Sustained The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In Respect Of Salary Income Earned By The Assessee During His Short-Term Foreign Assignment In The Philippines. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee With A Delay Of 366 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 5(2)(b)Section 6(1)

filed his return of income for AY 2015–16 declaring total income of ₹86,82,640 and claiming refund of ₹13,310. Subsequently, a revised return was filed declaring total income of ₹86,90,530 and claiming refund of ₹59,490. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS

Devaraj Ilavarasan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(6), Salem

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2444/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2444/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. The Ito, Devaraj Ilavarasan, 2/217-C, Siddar Koil Main Road, Ward 1(6), Sivathapuram, Salem 636 307. Salem. [Pan: Abopi2465G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 144

original return of income declaring turnover of Rs.10,76,50,000/- and income of Rs.9,26,500/-. No audit report was furnished. A revised return dated 01.08.2019 was later filed declaring turnover of Rs.13,76,50,000/- along with the audit report. ITA No.2444/Chny/25 (AY 2017-18) Devaraj Ilavarasan ... Assessing Officer (“AO”) treated the revised return as non est and completed assessment u/s 144 of the Act, estimating business profit @ 8% of turnover and further adding Rs.60,00,000/- as unexplained investment allegedly noted during survey u/s 133A in the “D. Devaraj group” cases. 3. On further appeal

Nagarjuna Vutla, Eluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Eluru

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs

ITA 524/VIZ/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Dec 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.524/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2024-25) Vs. Income Tax Officer Nagarjuna Vutla 24B-16-20, Yerakamma Street Ward-1 Ashok Nagar, Eluru Income Tax Office West Godavari District - 534002 Eluru, West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aoupn9597D]

Section 143(1)Section 246Section 246A

after claiming credit under Double Tax Avoidance Agreement by filing Form 67. The return was filed on 22.07.2024. Subsequently, he noticed that the revised return of income was filed on 06.08.2024 by the consultant without his knowledge and consent. The revised return of income was filed with enhanced “salary income ... income from other sources”. He also noticed that the revised return of income filed in Form ITR-1 was signed and sent to Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore [in short “CPC”] by the consultant fraudulently without assessee’s knowledge. The CPC, Bangalore has processed the revised return of income and passed

Joseph Abraham Peter Joseph, Madurai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Revenue Building, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2722/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.M. Muriga Boopathy, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R. Raghupathy, Addl.CIT

Section 271(1)(c)

return and attached a summary of total income adjusting profit on the LTCG & STCG; and even at that stage, didn’t bother to file revised return. Considering the aforesaid facts, the Hon’ble High Court wondered as to how the assessee while responding to the penalty notice dated 12.03.2015, could

Prabha Devi, Saharanpur vs. ITO Ward-3(3)(5), Saharanpur

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4377/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalprabha Devi Vs. Ito, Ward 3(3)(5) House No. 1/1522, Juneja Income Tax Office, Court Bhawan, Wazeer Vihar, Road, Haqikatnagar, Khalasi Line, Saharanpur Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh – 247001 Uttar Pradesh – 247001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Agopd6725H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Sahni, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr

Section 143(3)

added on liability side is not acceptable in the assessment proceedings as there is no provision to consider claim otherwise by way of a revised return of income filed within due time. 3. Now before the Ld. CIT(A) all these facts were asserted that assessee could not succeed

ACIT, Circle 3, Lucknow vs. Anshuman Singh, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 342/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

person-\n\na. fails to make the return required (under sub section (1) of sec.139) and has not made a return or a revised return under sub section (4) or sub section(5) of that section or\n\nb. fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued

DCIT, Swargate Pune vs. Cummins India Ltd, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1256/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 250Section 80JSection 92C

nthereafter, passed a final assessment order on 30/06/2022\nmaking various adjustments and instead of considering the\nincome declared by the assessee in the final revised return,\nadopted the income as per intimation order u/s.143(1)(a) of\nthe Act dated 19/01/2021. The total income assessed by the\nLd.AO ... reasons.\n2. While doing so, in the said Intimation, the CPC has at the\noutset considered the date of filing the revised return of\nincome and not the date of filing the original return of income.\n3. The assessee submits that there is no incorrect claim as per\nsection

Mr. Akil Abbas Rassai, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 22(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5761/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 56(2)(x)

Learned Assessing Officer in not considering the fact that substantial consideration of Rs.84,98,000/- was received back by the assessee and that the revised return was filed primarily on account of subsequent event in terms of cancellation taking place.” 2. The assessee is an individual and filed the return ... could rely upon to controvert the finding of AO. On perusal of assessment order, it is observed that the appellant had filed his revised return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 30.03.2019 declaring total income at Rs.36,34,300/-. This case had been selected for scrutiny under manual selection

Fluor Daniel India Private Limited, India vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7(1), Cr Building, Ip Estate, New Delhi, India

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3481/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234C

extent not credited to the employees account on or before the due date (36(1)(va)] claimed in Schedule Ol of the revised Return of Income ("Rol") and Clause 20(b) of the Tax Audit Report. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Fuji Electric India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 701/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Siddhesh Chaugula, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, C.I.T

Section 92C

disallowance is contemplated, the expenditure should be allowed in the subsequent year when TDS was deposited. However, the due date for filing a revised return for that year has expired, and the assessment is closed. Any disallowance now would result in permanent disallowance, contrary to legislative intent and equity

Parth Singh Pundir, Dehradun vs. CIT Appeal, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 80/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

Income for the A.Y.2017-18 on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.7,44,410/- and agriculture income of Rs. 2,00,000/- later filed revised return on 05.11.2017. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 143(2) &142(1) of the Act were issued to the Assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Lucknow vs. M/S. U.P. State Construction & Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Lucknow

ITA 617/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

misconceived. The case relied upon by the AO is on the issue of a fresh claim being made otherwise than by filing of revised return of income. In the present case there is no fresh claim being raised by the appellant. The appellant has claimed that the disallowance of labour ... case of Goetze India Ltd Vs CIT (2006) 284 TTR 323 to the effect that no fresh claim can be made except by filing revised return is limited to the power of the AO and not an appellate authority. 5(5) I find that the appellant filed its return

U.P Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Limited (Now Known As U.P State Construction and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.), Lucknow vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Lucknow

ITA 67/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

nand misconceived. The case relied upon by the AO is on the issue of a fresh\nclaim being made otherwise than by filing of revised return of income. In the\npresent case there is no fresh claim being raised by the appellant. The appellant\nhas claimed that the disallowance ... case of Goetze India Ltd Vs\nCIT (2006) 284 TTR 323 to the effect that no fresh claim can be made except by\nfiling revised return is limited to the power of the AO and not an appellate\nauthority.\n5(5) I find that the appellant filed its return

Mercedes-Benz Research and Development India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Special Range-4, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 972/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Kamal Sawhney, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Diyva K.J., D.R

Section 250Section 92C

return of income for the assessment year 2017- 18 on 30.11.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.148,65,39,620/-. The assessee filed revised return on 29.3.2019. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served on the assessee. Since the assessee had international transactions

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

once the assessing authority had failed to take any objection in the matter the declaration of income made by the assessee in his revised returns and his explanation that he had done so to buy peace with the Department and to come out of vexed litigation could be treated

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2890/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

evident from the perusal of the order of assessment that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 82,06,23,550/- vide revised return of income furnished on 31.11.2011. Thereafter the assessee filed revised computation vide letter dated 26.12.2012 wherein the assessee has suo motu disallowed provision for doubtful advances