“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

Jayshree Devi Ramji Gupta, Mumbai vs. ADIT, Mumbai

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

ITA 6047/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 40A(3)

income i.e., business income which is subjected to tax audit. Thereafter, the assessee declared total income of Rs. 38,04,700/- in her revised return of income which was filed along with the tax audit report. 6.1. Because of some legal formalities, the assessee could not operate the bank account

Avinash Sewakdas Gondane, Amravati vs. ITO Ward 1 Amravati, Amravati

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 525/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 234A

retired from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2020–21 on 12/12/2020 and revised return of income was filed on 11.03.2021 disclosing a total income of Rs.11,48,430/- after claiming the exemption under section 10(10AA ... case was selected for complete scrutiny on the issues (i) reduction of income in revised return & claim of refund and (ii) salary income. Subsequently notice was issued u/sec143(2) and U/sec142(1) of the Act The Assessing Officer find that the assessee has claimed excess exemption under section

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Nanu Lal Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1024/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, C.A. (through VC)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhari, Addl. CIT a

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154

grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and the AO is directed to accept the claim of the assessee as claimed in his revised return amounting to Rs. 12,13,200/-u/s. 10(10AA) of the Act. Dinesh Kumar Mittal vs. ITO AY 2021-22 ITA No. 1570/JP/2024

Radiant Textiles Private Limited, Patiala vs. ACIT, Circle, Patiala

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 444/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.444/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Radiant Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle Patiala बनाम/ Village Chounth, Patiala Road Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Samana-147101 Patiala 147001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcr-1175-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2019-20 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13-02-2025 In The Matter Of A Rectification Order Passed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 154 Of The Act On 28-11-2023. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Is Application Of Correct Rates Of Taxes.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 145ASection 154

excluded from the turnover of the assessee. Even the assessee does not seek exclusion of these other components (except forex gains) in the revised return of income which is sought to be filed later on. The various case laws as cited by the assessee in its written submission are primarily

DCIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company, Mohali

ITA 15/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 729/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 15/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-Central Circle 2 M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company बनाम/ Vs. Cr Building, Sector 17 1, Mubarikpur To Ramgarh Road Chandigarh – 160017 Vpo Mubarikpur, Mohali (Punjab) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abafm-6580-C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. Co. No.39/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. No. 729/Chandi/2022) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. Co. No.40/Chandi/2024 (In Ita No. No. 15/Chandi/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company Acit-Central Circle 2 बनाम/ Sco 506, Chirag Homes-2 Cr Building, Sector 17 Near Arista Place, Sector 123 Chandigarh – 160017 Vs. Sunny Enclave, Mohali (Punjab)-140301 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abafm-6580-C (Cross Objector) (Respondent) : Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr Assessee By : Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate)-Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 132Section 153A

ratio of which would accordingly, apply to the present appeals also. 5. Based on incriminating material as found during search operations, the assessee filed revised return of income during the course of assessment proceedings by disclosing net profit rate of 5% on gross turnover of Rs.25.39 Crores. However ... actual profit rate of 2.28% which was much lower than the profit rate of 5% as already declared by the assessee in its revised return of income. Therefore, the impugned addition was deleted against which the revenue is in further appeal before us. 6. Similar assessment was framed

ACIT, CC-2, Chandigarh vs. M/S Mubarikpur Royalty Company, Mohali

ITA 729/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 132Section 153A

Kavita Balraj Lanjile, Pashan vs. ITO, Pune

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

ITA 1758/PUN/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1758/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kavita Balraj Lanjile, Vs. Ito, Ward-11(2), Pune. Flat No.401, Bldg. No.A-2, Shivranjan Tower, Someshwarwadi, Pune- 411008. Pan : Aaqpl5138C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.01.2024 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Having Income From Profession & Business Income In The Shape Of Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firm & Also Agricultural Income. The Assessee Furnished Her Return Of Income On 17.07.2014 Disclosing Professional Income, Income From Other

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 44A

assessee voluntarily revised her return of income and disclosed the above said income and paid the due taxes. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the revised return since it was furnished beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 139(5) of the Act and completed the assessment

Antrix Corporation Ltd, Bangalore vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1041/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Gunashekar, CA

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 40ASection 90A

Insofar as the denial of FTC, the assessee submitted that they had furnished the Form 67 along with the revised return on 22/11/2019, well before the processing of the return and passing the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 30/03/2021. The assessee also relied on the several orders ... authorities even if the same was filed belatedly. The Ld.AR submitted that in the present case, the Form 67 was filed along with the revised return well before the CPC took up the return for processing and therefore the non-consideration by the CPC is not correct and liable

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Vodafone Essar Digilink Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1158/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Shri Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

return of income for the Assessment Year 2010-2011 on 11/10/2010 which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, Assessee filed revised return of income on 29/03/2012, inter-alia, on account of demerger of passive infrastructure assets. In the revised return the Assessee declared losses of INR.2

Vodafone Digilink Limited, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, New Delhi

ITA 1073/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

raise the contention before AO. As the CPC passed the assessment order, assessee had no opportunity to make a fresh claim by way of revised return before the CPC as the process is automated. Thus, assessee's fresh claim before appellate authority is entertainable even if the same ... claimed in the original return of income, nor assessee has filed a revised return of income to make such claim." Also refer Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2008] 170 Taxman 304/305 ITR 103 (SC) (para 3), Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 157 Taxman 1/284

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Rms Karamchari Bachat and Sakh Sahakari Samiti Limited Jaipur, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 250

Brahm Precision Materials Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 425/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1183/Pun/2023 And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

basis of unaudited accounts, was filed on 1-11-2004. After audit had taken place and report of the Auditors was accepted, revised return was filed on 18-8-2005 and it is only in the revised return, the debts to the tune of Rs.2 crores and odd had been

Brahm Precision Materials Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad vs. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1183/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1183/Pun/2023 And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Bharat Kumar Jaishinh Soni, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4261/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 270ASection 270A(9)

exemption of ₹ 3,00,000 on the said amount under section 10(10AA)(ii). Soon thereafter, on 2 September 2020, the assessee filed a revised return declaring total income of ₹ 14,08,380 and claiming full exemption of the leave-encashment amount under section 10(10AA)(i). The Assessing Officer ... claim and not of concealment or misreporting. He pointed out that all primary facts were truly disclosed, the claim was made openly in the revised return, and the legal position had since been rendered fluid by subsequent governmental action raising the exemption threshold. Reliance was also placed on several coordinate

Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee isallowed in above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 2499/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanshree Gurudev Datta Mandir Cit(Exemptions)/Ito Trust Ward 2(3), Datta Mandir Compound, Datta Vs. R. No. 601, 6Th Floor, Cumbulla Mandir Road, Vakola Pipeline, Hill, Mtnl Building, Santacruz East, Mumbai-400 055 Cumballa Hill, Mumbai, Pan: Aaats8130R Maharashtra – 400 026

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

facts and circumstances of the present case because in the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered that assessee filed a revised return of income Shree Gurudev Datta Mandir Trust demanding carry forward of losses by not claiming exemption under section 10B of the Act and for that reason ... Supreme Court was of the opinion that the claim of exemption withdrawn in revised return filed after due date and loss claimed to be carried forward was not permissible on account of assessee’sfailure to comply with the twin conditions as provided u/s. 10B(8) of the Act. 7. Since

Aradhana Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ward 20(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1285/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 80P

regarding the nature of receipts, which is outside the scope of rectification permissible under the Act. 3.1.2.2 If the rectified return is considered a revised return, it fails to comply with the statutory timeline under Section 139(5), which requires a revised return to be filed before ... relevant assessment year. The appellant filed the purported revised return on July 20, 2019, well beyond the deadline of March 31, 2019. Consequently, the revised return is invalid in law. 3.1.2.3 An invalid revised return cannot give rise to a fresh claim or alteration in the treatment of income