← 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

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1243/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

residential buildings. It filed its original return of income on 30.10.2018 disclosing total loss at Rs.69,90,996/-. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return of income on 30.03.2019 disclosing total loss at Rs.25,08,486/-. In absence of any details furnished by the assessee to explain the loan creditors

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1242/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

residential buildings. It filed its original return of income on 30.10.2018 disclosing total loss at Rs.69,90,996/-. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return of income on 30.03.2019 disclosing total loss at Rs.25,08,486/-. In absence of any details furnished by the assessee to explain the loan creditors

Arihant Vastushilp Propcon Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1241/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar and Ratnakar Bhimrao Shelake
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271BSection 68

residential buildings. It filed its original return of income on 30.10.2018 disclosing total loss at Rs.69,90,996/-. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return of income on 30.03.2019 disclosing total loss at Rs.25,08,486/-. In absence of any details furnished by the assessee to explain the loan creditors

Kothari Agritech Pvt. Ltd, Solapur vs. The DCIT, Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2455/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

filed its return of income on 30.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.12,11,25,450/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 31.03.2019 declaring total income at 2 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 Rs.5,22,07,920/- and claiming refund ... reasons: 6.4.1 Assessee is taking plea in the rectification application that since 801A claim is admissible as the same was submitted along with his revised return of income u/s 139(5) of IT Act quoting section 801A (7) of IT Act which says that: 4 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024

Kothari Agritech Private Limited, Solapur vs. DCIT Circle-1, Solapur

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2392/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 80Section 801ASection 80ISection 80J

filed its return of income on 30.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.12,11,25,450/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 31.03.2019 declaring total income at 2 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 Rs.5,22,07,920/- and claiming refund ... reasons: 6.4.1 Assessee is taking plea in the rectification application that since 801A claim is admissible as the same was submitted along with his revised return of income u/s 139(5) of IT Act quoting section 801A (7) of IT Act which says that: 4 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024

Mtitanium Apartments Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4694/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () Assessment Year: 2024-2025 Mtitanium Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Dy. Cit-Circle 1(2)(1), 2Nd Floor, Shreeniwas House, Range 412, Aayakar Bhawan, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 001. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm 6810 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Narayn AtalFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

carry forward is mandatory and not carry forward is mandatory and not directory". Accordingly, the directory". Accordingly, the court has held that, the revised return filed by assessee under court has held that, the revised return filed by assessee under court has held that, the revised return filed by assessee

DCIT-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Goldman Sachs (India) Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4276/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 37(1)Section 92C

assessee was engaged in the business of providing merchant banking services and carrying on securities transactions in India. 2.1 The assessee filed a revised return of income for the year under consideration on 31.03.2015, declaring a total income of Rs. 4,183,593,840/-. The said return was selected

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue and the assessee are partly allowed, and the additional ground of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4069/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

raise an additional claim, though the claim for deduction of ESOP had not been made either in the original return or in the revised return. The Ld. CIT(A) has rendered contradictory findings with respect to the claim of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of Water Treatment plant and ESOP

Grasim Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2897/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry – Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260ASection 43BSection 45Section 801ASection 801A(4)

raise an additional claim, though the claim for deduction of ESOP had not been made either in the original return or in the revised return. The Ld. CIT(A) has rendered contradictory findings with respect to the claim of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of Water Treatment plant and ESOP

DCIT, Circle- 19(1), Delhi vs. Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2072/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-19(1), 208, 2Nd Floor, Sikka Mansion, New Delhi Lsc, Savita Vihar, Delhi Pan: Aadcp5228P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 263

Assessee is a company files its Return of income on 17.10.2016 showing total income of Rs.4,52,68,500/-. The assessee filed revised return on 28.02.2018 showing total income of Rs.4,52,68,500/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and order

Yogesh Mathur, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 493/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.493/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Shri Yogesh Mathur Mig-694, Behind Pandit Medical, Padmanabhpur, Durg-491 001 (C.G.) Pan: Adrpm8822E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)

u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) opting for Old Tax Regime. Further, the assessee furnished a revised return u/s.139(5) of the Act, dated 05.08.2022 after the due date for filing return u/s.139(1) of the Act opting for New Tax Regime ... therefore, it is an admitted fact that the 4 Shri Yogesh Mathur Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhilai assessee had furnished revised return u/s.139 (5) of the Act, dated 05.08.2022 after due date for filing return u/s. 139(1) of the Act opting for New Tax Regime. That since

Rambabu Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Jaipur

ITA 561/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Id.Cit(A)", On The Observation That Though This Ground Of Appeal Was Part Of Form 35 Filed In Physical Form, However, Due To Technical Glitch The Relevant Ground Was Missing In The Form 35 Electronically Filed. However, Appellant Prays That Such Ground Of Appeal Were Duly Filed As Attachment Alongwith Form 35 Filed Electronically Which Was Omitted To Be Typed In "Form Of Appeal" Inadvertently.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)

return of income were incorrect, which came to the knowledge of appellant only after commencement of assessment proceedings, by when due date of filing revised return had expired. Thus the additions deserve to be deleted. 1.3 That the Ld. CIT(A) had failed to consider the fact that Shri Mukesh

Ganesh Polychem Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2145/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250

fresh claim made by the assessee, even if such a claim was not made in return of income or by way of a revised return of income. Thus, we find no infirmity in the impugned order admitting the additional ground filed by the assessee. 44. Further, we find that ... facts viz. whether or not claim for quantification was a fresh claim which is not made in the return of income or in the revised return of income. 10. The reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd.(supra) by the Revenue is misplaced

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhpatnam vs. M/S. Sardar Projects Pvt. Ltd, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 357/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita No. 357/Viz/2025 (A.Y. 2021-22) Dcit – Central Circle – 1 V. M/S. Sardar Projects Pvt Ltd., 5Th Floor, Direct Taxes Building 7-5-64, Plot No. 48 Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017 Pandurangarpuram Andhra Pradesh Visakhapatnam – 530003 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aakcs3773K] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 69A

that, assessee Company filed its return of income on 07.03.2022 admitting a total income of Rs.1,15,59,390/-. Subsequently, the assessee also revised return of income admitted Rs.1,56,22,390/- in the revised return of income filed on 31.03.2022. Consequent to search and seizure operation under section ... stating that it has already admitted an amount of Rs.40,63,000/- as additional income and paid the taxes accordingly while filing revised return of income for the A.Y. 2021-22. Further they also accepted the difference of Rs.1,27,694/- as undisclosed income and requested to consider as undisclosed

Olive International Education Foundation, Gandhinagar vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1 (Exemption), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2118/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT. DR
Section 11

appeal: 1. That on facts, and in law, the learned AO and Addl/ JCIT (A)-3 have grievously erred in not considering the Revised Return appellant returning income at Rs. Nil. 2. That on facts, and in law, the learned Addl/JCIT (A)-3 has grievously erred in confirming the disallowance

Trikkur Varadarajan Sreenivasan, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 786/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: MS. Jyothi Anumolu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

receipts in his Bittrex wallet has been received, the ledger statement of Bittrex account and the computation how assessee is showing income in his revised return. The assessee had submitted that, these were the borrowed funds, which were received through Bittrex 3 ITA.No.786/Hyd./2025 from his friends abroad

Kalyanasundaram Ranjithkumar, Thiruvarur vs. ITO, Ncw-22(6), Tambaram

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

ITA 1622/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1622/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kalyanasundaram Ranjithkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 2/46A, Keela Padugai Po, Non Corporate Ward 22(6), Thiruvarur 610 109. Tambaram. [Pan:Aimpr1914L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Aswathy, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.11.2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 489 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons In Support Of An Affidavit. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, I Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which 2

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. V. Aswathy, JCIT
Section 10Section 17(3)Section 89

gratia received from assessee’s employer. 4. Brief facts relating to the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed revised return of income on 01.09.2020 declaring total income of ₹.7,45,580/- and claimed ₹.35,47,920/- as exempt income under section 10 of the Income

Ramu & Co., Erode vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Erode

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

ITA 1104/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 28

demand of ₹6,98,670/- in its intimation order u/s.143(1) of the Act dated 02.02.2024. The assessee realizing the mistake immediately filed a revised return declaring the said insurance claim of ₹19,33,408/- in Sl.No.5(a) in the return and thereafter, filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT ... also disclosed against the “item falling within the scope of Section 28 of the Act”. Thus, the Ld.CIT(A) noted that in the revised return, assessee has disclosed the total amount of ₹38,66,816/- under the heading “amount not credited to P & L account” against total amount

Zeba Zubair Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 42(1)4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4129/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Poojan MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

income on 04/07/2017, declaring a total income of INR 4,77,700. The said return was treated as invalid. Subsequently, the assessee filed the revised return of income on 06/07/2017, declaring a total income of INR 3,82,230. The revised return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny

Akry Organics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Central Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we allow the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80-IA(4) to the extent of ₹17,40,75,413/-, as made in the revised return of income

ITA 3014/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 80

filed along with it. 3 Akry Organics Pvt.Ltd., 3.3. Subsequently, the assessee availed its statutory right under section 139(5) to file a revised return of income for the said assessment year. The revised return was filed on 31/03/2022, declaring a reduced income of ₹28,76,30,831/– under ... normal provisions, while book profit under section 115JB remained unchanged at ₹51,56,89,003/–. Along with this revised return, the assessee also uploaded Form No. 10CCB which had been signed and dated 29/03/2022. 3.4. Upon processing of the revised return, the CPC, Bengaluru, issued a show-cause notice