← 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

Brahmos Realty Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4119/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4119/Mum/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2024-25 Brahmos Realty Private Limited A-10002, Aristo Sappyhire, 2Nd Floor, Hasnabad Lane, Santakruz (W), Mumbai-400 054 (M.H) Pan: Aadcr5685C ...........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2)(1),Mumbai (M.H.) .......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By Revenue By : Shri B.N Rao : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :13.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 2 Brahmos Realty Private Limited Vs. Ito, Ward-9(2)(1)

For Respondent: Shri B.N Rao
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 250

wherein it was observed that "Although the assessee can claim a deduction which was not claimed in the original return filed or through a revised return and the Ld. CIT(A) can entertain such a new claim, in view of the various judicial precedents relied ... mandatory. Considering the similar principle that a claim of deduction/exemption without claiming the same in the original return filed or through a revised return and the Ld. CIT(A) can entertain such a new claim, in view of the various judicial precedents relied on by the Ld. CIT(A), however

Alhad Narasinh Kulkarni, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Mum-W-(432)(91), Mumbai

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

ITA 2546/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Alhad Narasinh Kulkarni Income Tax Officer Mum-W- Block 5, Flat 304, Jaypee Cghs, (432)(91), Mumbai (Beverly Park), Plot 2, Sector 22, Vs. Dwarka, Delhi – 110077. Pan/Gir No. Adqpk0726N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B. N. Rao, Ca : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr Dr Respondent By : 07.08.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/Jcit (A)-3 Ahmedabad (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dismissed The Appeal Without Considering The Reason For Delay As Proper & Justifiable. 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Considered The Affidavit & The Reasoning Provided In Looking To The Hardship Experienced By The Appellant In Filing Appeal Alhad Narasinh Kulkarni

For Appellant: Shri B. N. Rao, CAFor Respondent: 07.08.2025
Section 143(3)Section 23(4)(b)Section 24Section 250

declaring total income at Rs. 26,00,220/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A at Rs. 1,60,000/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return dated 11.01.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 18,02,260/-, thereby claiming a refund of Rs. 2,55,700/- out of the TDS deducted ... employer of the assessee and claims that the reduction of income in the revised return is out of excess claim of interest amounting to Rs. 8,22,459/- after offering deemed rent of Rs. 35,000/- on the newly acquired property which was not claimed by the assessee

Bhagwan Precision, Rohtak vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

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

ITA 5174/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbhagwan Precision, Vs. Acit, 35, Subhash Nagar, Model Town, Rohtak. Rohtak – 124 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aajfb6625K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Shri Ayush Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2025 Date Of Order : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl./Jcit (Appeals)-6, Chennai [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 28.09.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice Brief Fact Of The Case That Assessee Is A Firm Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Precision Turned Parts. The Works Of The Assessee Is At Industrial Part Iv, Plot No.9 V, Begampur (Haridwar)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234BSection 44ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

80IC in Form No.10CCB were also obtained on the same date itself i.e. on 02.08.2017. Since the assessee has filed the revised return of income and also filed audit report in Form 10CCB along with revised return of income, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee u/s 80IC ... appreciate that since the original return of income and Audit Report u/s 44AB were filed within the due date prescribed u/s 139 (1), the revised return of income filed u/s 139(5) of the Act was a valid return. 4. The ld. CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the deduction

Gunapalan Mallinathan, Ranipet vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

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

ITA 665/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 665/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2020-21 Shri Gunapalan Mallinathan, The Income Tax Officer, No.21, Kaviarasu Kannadasan Vs. Ward 2, Street, Vellore. Sriramnagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai – 600 087. Pan: Adipm 2621A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.08.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 13.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gowthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 250

Chapter VIA amounting to Rs.2,05,552/- and a house property loss of Rs.1,02,210/-. Subsequently, on 22.05.2021, the assessee had filed two revised returns on the same day. In the first revised return, the assessee had declared income of Rs.11,85,640/- with enhanced chapter VI-A deductions ... Rs.11,74,329/- and house property loss of Rs.1,98,000/- and in the second revised return, the assessee had declared income of Rs.9,51,640/- with further enhanced chapter VI-A deductions of Rs.14,07,329/- and house property loss of Rs.1,99,000/-. These revised returns resulted