← 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

Keezhuparamba Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, Malappuram vs. ITO Ward 2, Tirur

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 567/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Raghunathan PFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 80P

accepted:” 4. The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee, a co-operative society registered under Kerala Co-Operative Societies Act, filed a revised return of income on 29/12/2022 for the Assessment Year 2022-2023 declaring ‘Nil’ income after claiming deduction under Section 80P of the Act in respect

Chundayil Kalam Girijadevi, Keralassery vs. ITO Ward 1 & Tps, Palakkad

ITA 564/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Padmnathan K.VFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal
Section 250Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

exemption of INR.10,00,000/- under Section 10(10) of the Act in respect of gratuity received on retirement. Thereafter, the Assessee filed a revised return claiming a higher exemption of INR.20,00,000/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for regular scrutiny. The 4 Assessment Year ... case there was misrepresentation or suppression of facts by the Assessee. The Assessee had made claim for enhanced exemption by way of filing a revised returned of income. Thus, all the material/relevant facts were disclosed by the Assessee. Further, in our view it cannot be said that the Assessee

Kashi Nath Seth Sarraf Private Limited, Hardoi vs. ACIT, Sitapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 88/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 44Section 68

year, the appellant company has shown turnover of Rs.26,75,79,570/- from sale of Gold & Silver Bullion and Gold and Silver ornaments. The revised return was also filed on 18/03/2019.The case of the appellant was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of IT Act, was issued

Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(3), Mumbai

ITA 3260/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jayantilal Rajmal Seth, Dcit-Cc-4(3), A-3, Saibaba Shopping Centre, Bkc, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai Central, Vs. Mumbai-400008. Pan No. Agepj 0499 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Jayant Bhat
Section 139(5)Section 148Section 263

disclosed in the revised 29.06.2021 declaring the same income as disclosed in the revised 29.06.2021 declaring the same income as disclosed in the revised return filed earlier on 03.06.2019 under section 139(5) of the Act. return filed earlier on 03.06.2019 under section 139(5) of the Act. return filed

Virender Malik, Sagore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1810/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 80CSection 80T

return. Assessee purchased HDFC Policy by paying Rs.2,50,000/- on 22nd March 2021, which is mentioend in Assessment Order. Mr.Amit Banerjee filed revised return claiming certain deductions and Assessee was made to believe that those deductions were as per law. Since assessee have no knowledge of Income ... u/s.80TTA. Ld.AR submitted that this deduction should be allowed to the assessee. Ld.AR again submitted that due to mistake of the Tax consultant the revised return was filed. Submission of ld.DR : 4. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue has not objected to assessee’s claim. Findings & Analysis : 5. We have

Virender Malik, Sagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(4), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1809/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 10(14)Section 10(14)(ii)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 250Section 80CSection 80T

return. Assessee purchased HDFC Policy by paying Rs.2,50,000/- on 22nd March 2021, which is mentioend in Assessment Order. Mr.Amit Banerjee filed revised return claiming certain deductions and Assessee was made to believe that those deductions were as per law. Since assessee have no knowledge of Income ... u/s.80TTA. Ld.AR submitted that this deduction should be allowed to the assessee. Ld.AR again submitted that due to mistake of the Tax consultant the revised return was filed. Submission of ld.DR : 4. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue has not objected to assessee’s claim. Findings & Analysis : 5. We have

Azb and Partner, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 4105/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 195Section 263

taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh) where it was held that where no enquiry was conducted by the AO in passing assessment order after accepting revised return file by the assessee, Commissioner was well within his powers in 263 to direct fresh assessment. 14. We have heard the rival submissions and perused

Email Pharmaceuical Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

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

ITA 2079/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Emil Pharmaceutical V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Industries Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Income Tax-4 101, Mangalam, Kulupwadi Room No. 629, Aayakar Road, Borivali East, Mumbai Bhawan, Maharishi Karve –400101, Maharashtra Road, Mumbai–400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace0922A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Anil Thakrar, CA (Virtually appeared)For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR)
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

said notice. b) Without appreciating the fact that, the said assessment was selected for the reason that the assessee had filed a revised return wherein ‘A’ co. had claimed an additional amount of Rs.7,55,000/- towards donation under Chapter VI-A of the act. c) Without appreciating the fact

Pioneer India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2969/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 92C

which the income was first assessable, or (b) One year from the end of the financial year in which a return or a revised return relating to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1988, or any earlier assessment year, is filed under sub-section

Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel, HUF, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 47/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, and a notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021. In response, the assessee filed a revised return on 30.09.2021. The reasons for reopening, as provided to the assessee, indicated suspicion of unexplained credits which were allegedly routed through unsecured loans

Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel, HUF, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, and a notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021. In response, the assessee filed a revised return on 30.09.2021. The reasons for reopening, as provided to the assessee, indicated suspicion of unexplained credits which were allegedly routed through unsecured loans

Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel, HUF, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, and a notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021. In response, the assessee filed a revised return on 30.09.2021. The reasons for reopening, as provided to the assessee, indicated suspicion of unexplained credits which were allegedly routed through unsecured loans

Income Tax Ward 4(2)(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel HUF, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, and a notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021. In response, the assessee filed a revised return on 30.09.2021. The reasons for reopening, as provided to the assessee, indicated suspicion of unexplained credits which were allegedly routed through unsecured loans

Income Tax Ward 4(2)(3) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel HUF, Gandhinagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 266/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, and a notice under Section 148 was issued on 31.03.2021. In response, the assessee filed a revised return on 30.09.2021. The reasons for reopening, as provided to the assessee, indicated suspicion of unexplained credits which were allegedly routed through unsecured loans

M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax- Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 321/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

could be entertained by the Assessing Officer in the absence of the same finding a place either in return of income or in the revised return of income. It is further submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works ... Thus considering the above mentioned decision and also keeping in view the fact that for the year under consideration, the last date to file revised return of income was 31.03.2013 and to serve notice u/s 143(2), the last dated was 30.09.2013. However before the last date to revise

Patanjali Foods Ltd (Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd), Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax-Central Circle-7(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 319/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

could be entertained by the Assessing Officer in the absence of the same finding a place either in return of income or in the revised return of income. It is further submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works ... Thus considering the above mentioned decision and also keeping in view the fact that for the year under consideration, the last date to file revised return of income was 31.03.2013 and to serve notice u/s 143(2), the last dated was 30.09.2013. However before the last date to revise

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1174/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

could be entertained by the Assessing Officer in the absence of the same finding a place either in return of income or in the revised return of income. It is further submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works ... Thus considering the above mentioned decision and also keeping in view the fact that for the year under consideration, the last date to file revised return of income was 31.03.2013 and to serve notice u/s 143(2), the last dated was 30.09.2013. However before the last date to revise

DCIT, CC-7(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Patanjali Foods Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1173/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 37(1)

could be entertained by the Assessing Officer in the absence of the same finding a place either in return of income or in the revised return of income. It is further submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works ... Thus considering the above mentioned decision and also keeping in view the fact that for the year under consideration, the last date to file revised return of income was 31.03.2013 and to serve notice u/s 143(2), the last dated was 30.09.2013. However before the last date to revise

Society for Creation of Opportunities Through Proficiency in English (Scope), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(Exemptions), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 387/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

hold that a claim for exemption or deduction not made in the original return could only be entertained through a revised return filed within the statutory time limit. Since the time for filing a revised return had lapsed, and no rectification was processed, the assessee’s exemption claim could

Smt Bertha D'Costa, Cavelossim, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Margao

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

ITA 159/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.158 &159/Pan/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Shri.Julio D Costa, Vs Ito-Ward-2, H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6709F) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. Smt.Bertha D Costa, Ito-Ward-2, Vs H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. . Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6748N) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Shrinivas Nayak.Ar Revenue By Smt.Manju Thakur.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesses (Husband & Wife) Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A) -1 Panaji Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesses Are Governed By The Portuguese Civil Code & Provisions Of Section 5A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & Aconsolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience

Section 44ASection 5A

Ld.DR mentioned that the assesse has not filed return of income opting for section 44AD of the Act u/sec139(1) of the Act nor revised return of income was filed and this is the first time such claim was made for this assessment year only in comparison to earlier assessment