← 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

Hcg Tvh Medical Imaging Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2239/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2238 & 2239/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Hcg Tvh Medical Imaging The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward 2(3), No.150, P. Kalinga Road, Chennai Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 084 Pan: Aacch 1276L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

dated 15.07.2013 and 20.03.2015 for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had filed revised return for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 beyond the time prescribed. It was further stated by the Ld.AR, if the revised return were taken into account and processed ... Ld.AR that assessee has filed a condonation application u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act before the CBDT for condoning the delay in filing the revised return for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 and the same is pending consideration. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is excepting a favourable decision

Hcg Tvh Medical Imaging Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2238/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2238 & 2239/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Hcg Tvh Medical Imaging The Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Corporate Ward 2(3), No.150, P. Kalinga Road, Chennai Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 084 Pan: Aacch 1276L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 250

dated 15.07.2013 and 20.03.2015 for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that assessee had filed revised return for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 beyond the time prescribed. It was further stated by the Ld.AR, if the revised return were taken into account and processed ... Ld.AR that assessee has filed a condonation application u/s.119(2)(b) of the Act before the CBDT for condoning the delay in filing the revised return for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14 and the same is pending consideration. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is excepting a favourable decision

Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Glaxosmithkline Consumer Pvt. Ltd., Nabha

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 121/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 121/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dcit, M/S Glaxosmithkline Circle 1(1), बनाम Consumer Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Patiala Road, Vs. Nabha. Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aafcg8415R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Mode ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate With Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate & Ms. Somya Jain, Ca (Virtual) राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Neeraj Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 32(1)

reasons as in Grounds above, i.e. that this claim was not 19 121-Chd-2023 M/s Glaxosmithkline Consumer Pvt. Ltd, Nabha made through a revised return, the provisions of the 6th proviso to sec 32(1) will apply to this transaction also, holding this to be a succession ... that the claim 20 121-Chd-2023 M/s Glaxosmithkline Consumer Pvt. Ltd, Nabha was not made by the assessee through a revised return and therefore cannot be entertained. This argument of the AO has also been addressed by me in para 5 above, wherein I have pointed out decisions

Seva Bharathi, Hyderabad vs. CIT., Exemption Ward 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 365/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

original return of income, wherein the quantum of deduction claimed under section 11(2) of the Act required correction and accordingly, the assessee filed revised return of income with the higher claim of deduction under section 11(2) of the Act. It has been held by various Courts that ... facts, wherein in the original return of income the assessee had claimed benefit under section 108 of the Act and thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee foregoing the claim of benefit of Section 10B of the Act. However, the facts of the instant case

Seva Bharathi, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward 1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.1307/Hyd

ITA 1307/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.365 & 1307/Hyd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2022-2023 Seva Bharathi, The Commissioner Of Hyderabad – 500 018. Income Tax Vs. Telangana. (Exemptions), Ward-1(4), Pan Aayts5233K Hyderabad – 500 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Ca Sri Harsha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 15.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA Sri HarshaFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

original return of income, wherein the quantum of deduction claimed under section 11(2) of the Act required correction and accordingly, the assessee filed revised return of income with the higher claim of deduction under section 11(2) of the Act. It has been held by various Courts that ... facts, wherein in the original return of income the assessee had claimed benefit under section 108 of the Act and thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee foregoing the claim of benefit of Section 10B of the Act. However, the facts of the instant case