“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

Zubin Jehanbux Gandevia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1789/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 5(2)

assesse by a letter dated 15/03/2024 claimed the said exemption and tax relief before the Ld.AO. As the assessee had not filed any revised return due to lapse of the due date. But the Ld.AO had not considered the assessee’s claim and passed the order considering the variations made ... before the Ld. DRP. The Ld. DRP had considered that as the issue was not claimed in the return of income or in the revised return; so, the Ld.AO was not eligible to allow the said relief to the assessee at the assessment stage. So, the Ld.DRP rejected the assessee

Pramod Kumar Dubey, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, 1(3), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 314/AGR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Sept 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: BEFORE, SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manuj Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 111ASection 112ASection 112A(6)Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 87A

subsequently revised on 31.12.2024 within the time allowed under section 139(5), to correct certain omissions in the capital gain schedule. In the revised return, the assessee exercised the option under section 115BAC(1A), i.e., to be governed by the default new tax regime applicable from ... amended by the Finance Act, 2023. The total tax liability computed under the revised return amounted to Rs. 13,320/-, arising solely on account of STCG under section 111A, which is chargeable at 15%. 2.3 The assessee being a resident individual with total income below Rs. 7,00,000/-, claimed

Tai Tado, Itanagar vs. ITO, Ward- North Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur

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

ITA 158/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray JCIT

Section 10Section 10(26)Section 250

said return, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(26) for an amount of Rs. 12,03,50,213/-. The assessee has also filed revised return of income on 08.03.2021 showing Nil income. In the revised return also, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(26) for an amount

Aditi Gupta, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward VII(1), Ludhiana

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes

ITA 195/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 195/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Aditi Gupta, Ito, 144,Greeen Park, बनाम Ward Vii(1), Civil Lines, Ludhiana Vs. Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bcjpg0439B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Satish Gupta, Advocate, राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. Cit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.01.2025 Of Addl./Jcit(A)-7, Kochi For A.Y. 2023-24. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Varadhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 80C

submissions made by the appellant on this ground are considered and thereupon the original return of income filed by the appellant on 21/09/2022, the revised return filed on 24/11/2022 for the AY: 2022-23 and the Return of Income filed on 27/09/2023 for the AY: 2023-24 have been duly ... Regime u/s 115BAC and filed Form 10IE on the very same date i.e, on 21/09/2022. Later, the appellant filed a revised return of income on 24/11/2022 not opting for the new tax regime u/s 115BAC as admitted in Column No. (A23) of the first page of ITR-4. 4.5 Accordingly

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad., Vejalpur vs. Gopalbhai Umarbhai Bharavad, Viramgam

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 19/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Final Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumbhare, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Hem Chhajed, AR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)

person— (a) fails to make the return required under sub-section (1) of section 139 and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub- section (5) or an updated return under sub-section (8A) of that section, or (b) fails to comply with

Chinnan Vaithyalingam, Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-19(6), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 181/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.181/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 M.Chinnan Vaithyalingam, Income Tax Officer, No.19/8, Kirupasankari Street, Non-Corporate Ward-19(6), West Mambalam, Chennai. Chennai- 600 033. [Pan: Aaspv5447L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri T.Vasudevan, Advocate, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

Officer is directed to add an amount of Rs.60,50,000/- to the appellant's total income of Rs. 10,06,620/- as per revised return filed. No separate addition is required to be made with regard to Rs.59,94,564/-determined in Para 7.17 above as the same

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Idfc Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1649/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1649/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit, Idfc Limited, Corporate Circle 1 (1), Vs. Krm Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, No.1, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031. Pan: Aaaci 2663N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: Shri Ketan K. Ved, CA

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 260A

filed on 13.11.2015 declaring total income of Rs.23,60,39,66,360/- under the normal provisions of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income declaring the same income but enhancing the claim for credit of tax deduction at source (TDS). The assessment was selected for scrutiny

Ratan Rajmal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 23(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4130/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Ratan Rajmal Mehta Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Harihar Niwas, Besant Road, 22(3)(1), Mumbai Vs. Santacruz (West), Mumbai – 400054. Pan/Gir No. Bdipm2252G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ketan Vajani (Virtually) Respondent By : Shri Annavaran Kasuri, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kasuri, SR. AR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270A

with finding that “Where the assessee has voluntarily admitted an error in the return and accepted the addition either by way of filing a revised return or where the time period for the same has lapsed by filing a letter, penalty in respect of such addition so made by treating

Rajnikant Raichand Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1326/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M Vasavda, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 54ESection 54F

primarily on the ground that the assessee did not furnish necessary supporting evidence for the exemption claims, and had changed his stand in the revised return without explanation. While the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee has consistently maintained that he had disclosed the transaction

Bees Infracon Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1283/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 2(22)(e)

I.T.A No. 1283/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Bees Infracon Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO declaring total income of Rs.29,19,058/= and a revised return on 14-11-2013. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment and regular assessment order u/s.143[3] was passed determining the income at Rs.29

Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 887/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 153ASection 80Section 80P

filed return of income under section 139(1) and even if it did not make claim for deduction in original return and subsequently file revised return making such claim, its claim for deduction under section 80-IA is maintainable. Therefore, where assessee had filed return under section ... entitled to claim deduction under section 80-IA even if such claim was not made in original return but subsequently in revised return filed in response to notice issued 2 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Ltd. under section 153A. In the case of Lanjani Co-Operative Agri Service Society

Arulmigu Devi Karumariamman Thirukoil, Chennai vs. DCIT (Exemptions), Chennai

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

ITA 1678/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1678/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Arulmigu Devi Karumariamman Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Thirukoil, Karumanriamman Thirukoil, Income Tax (Exemptions), Sannathi Street, Thiruverkadu 600 077, Chennai. Chennai. [Pan:Aadta3737H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. V. Krishnan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.04.2025 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Raised 10 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer By 2

For Appellant: Shri N. V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Government of Tamil Nadu through HR & EC Department. He submits that the assessee filed the return of income on 24.10.2019 and also filed revised return on 10.02.2020 in response to the proposed adjustment intimation under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short

Natesan Ekambaram, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

ITA 2873/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

For Appellant: Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54

Supreme Court held that the assessee can make a claim for deduction, which has not been claimed in the return, only by filing a revised return within the time allowed. In the same decision, it was made clear that the power of the Tribunal to admit an additional ground under ... case (supra), that, even if, the claim made by the assessee company does not form part of the original return or even the revised return, it could still be considered, if, the relevant material was available on record, either by the appellate authorities, (which includes both

Safari Sales and Services, Jabalpur vs. ITO Ward 1, Satna

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

ITA 101/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra**

Section 144BSection 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 69A

assessee filed original return of income for the year under consideration on 30/10/2017 showing income of Rs.3,22,120/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return on 30/10/2017 showing income of Rs.3,22,120/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment and passed assessment order on 25/03/2022 under section 147 read with

Nitin Rajaram Dhane, Satara vs. The DCIT Citrcle, Satara

In the result, for all the reasons discussed, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2748/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee had filed Original Return of Income on 05/09/2020. Then Assessee filed revised Return of Income on 30/03/2021. Assessee also filed Form Number 67 on 30.03.2021 as per Rule 128 of Income Tax Rules to claim Credit

U. Karthiyayini, ITO, Cw 5(1)(I/C), Chennai vs. Peacock Hospitals Pvt Ltd, Tituttani

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1749/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1749/ Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

along with return in conformity with return income, in which the turnover of the company was reported at Rs.25,19,93,356/-. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 25.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs.16,70,70,848/-, by inflating the turnover to Rs.25,19,93,356/- without enclosing ... audit report to support the revised return. In the revised return, a tax payment of Rs.5,05,01,000/- was also claimed to have been made vide challan No. 36457 dated 23.03.2016. The CPC, while processing the revised return, accepted the revised income of Rs.16

Ceva Logistics India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4194/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ceva Logistics India Private Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax-1(1) The Qube-A-902/903, 9Th National E-Assessment Floor, M.V. Road, Marol, Centre-Gurgaon, Andheri East Mumbai, Haryana Maharashtra, 400059 Pan: Aabct7326A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv& Sh. Bhavesh Mehta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Jadhav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 06/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assesseepertaining To Assessment Year 2020-21 Challenging The Final Assessment Order Passed By Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -1(1) Dated 15/07/2024 U/S143(3) R.W. Section 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' For Short).

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)

Ceva Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT to keep the proceedings on hold as the Assessee was in the process of filing a revised return of income for the merged entity. The Assessee filed the revised return of income considering the impact of the merger on 24th June, 2024, which ... requires to be considered in view of the merger. Thus, sought for remanding the matter to the file of the A.O/TPO to consider the revised return and frame the de-novo assessment. 3. Per contra, the Ld. Department's Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought

DCIT, Circle- 19(1), Delhi vs. Punjab National Bank, Delhi

ITA 3235/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

wherein it was expected that the assessee should have duly checked its books of Accounts and furnished the correct particulars. Even in the revised return, the assessee didn’t add the provision made for standard assets in computation of Book Profit. This shows that the intention of the assessee

Candor Kolkata One Hi-Tech Structures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-5(2), New Delhi

ITA 193/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

this regard, it comes up that the Assessee Entity i had claimed a TDS credit of INR 6,35,96,880 in its revised return of income. A copy of the ITR Acknowledgement evidencing the same is filed at page 47 of PB for Entity

Candor Gurgaon One Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Unitech Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT Spl. Range-2, New Delhi

ITA 8377/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)