“ revised return ”

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders

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.

349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court

956

CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.

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.

306 ITR 42 · 2008 · High Court

349

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.

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.

341 ITR 293 · 2012 · High Court

205

CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

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.

251 ITR 9 · 2001 · Supreme Court

179

Madhya Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

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.

241 ITR 124 · 2000 · High Court

220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court

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

35. In Virbhadra Singh (HUF) v. Pr. CIT

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.

298 CTR 393 · 2017 · High Court

ITA 3437/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

3I Infotech Limited, Vashi, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT/ ACIT, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 40Section 43(6)

perusal of the record of the appellant, it is noticed that while filing the original return for AY 2018-19 and original and revised returns for AY 2017-18 also, the appellant has not recorded the details of exempt income in schedule El, even though being credited into profit ... perusal of the record of the appellant, it is noticed that while filing the original return for AY 2018-19 and original and revised returns for AY 2017-18 also, the appellant has not recorded the details of exempt income in schedule El, even though being credited into profit

JCIT (OSD) I/C. to DCIT Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Garware Hi-Tech Films Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1133/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeejcit(Osd) I/C. To Dcit Circle- Vs Garware Hi-Tech Films Limited 1(3)(1), Mumbai 50A, Garware House, Swami Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Nityanand Marg, Vile Parle (East) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, S.O. Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 35(1)(i)Section 41

however the assessee has claimed MAT Credit of Rs. 29,17,19,510/- in ITR, the appellant has time to file revised return, condonation of delay to revised Mat Credit claim of Rs. 29,94,40,364/-." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assesse filed

Vadivel Muthukrishnan, Pollachi vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Pollachi, Pollachi-Income Tax Office

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

ITA 2701/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2701/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Vadivel Muthukrishnan, The Income Tax Officer, No.27, Kattabomman Street, Ward-2, Pollachi, Coimbatore, Pollachi Tamil Nadu-642 001. [Pan: Aklpm8847L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 115BSection 69A

submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) summarily dismissed the assessee’s arguments. He held that the reported mistake was never addressed by way of any revised return and therefore the hypothesis cannot be accepted. Before us the Ld.Counsel for the assessee reiterated the same set of arguments and placed reliance upon ... light of material available on records. We have noted from the arguments made by the assessee that the timeline for filing of revised return had lapsed by the time the impugned mistake had come to its notice. The judicial precedent set by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Goetze

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tmf Holdings Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2983/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrideputy Commissioner Of Vs Tmf Holdings Limited 14, 4Th Floor, Sir H C Dinshaw Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai Building, 16, Horniman Circle, Fort, Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai-400 001 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aacct4644A 400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

under regular provision of Act and Book Loss of Rs. (-) 112,34,96,476/- under section 115JB of the act. Thereafter the assessee filed Revised Return of income on 29.03.2019 declaring loss of Rs. (-) 1,85,40,01,426/- under regular provision of Act and Book Loss

Hdfc Bank Ltd (Successor to Hdfc Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1828/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrihdfc Bank Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of (As Successor To Housing Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai Development Corporation Room No.552, Aaykar Bhavan Finance Limited), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Hdfc Bank House, Corporate Tax Department, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaach2702H Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37(1)

Profit and Loss Account. However, it was noted that the assessee had not claimed this expenditure in its return of income, nor was a revised return filed to incorporate this claim. Accordingly, no such claim was made before the Assessing Officer. Nevertheless, the assessee contended before ... Comp. Ltd. (supra). The question before the Court was whether the appellant-assessee could make a claim for deduction, other than by filing a revised return. After the return was filed, the appellant sought to claim a deduction by way of a letter before the Assessing Officer. The claim, therefore

Dr. Grahams Homes, Kalimpong vs. ACIT (Exempt), Circle 31, Kolkata

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

ITA 669/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by upholding that the valid audit report in form no. 10B must be filed one month prior to the due date, failure to furnish such report in prescribed form result in disentitlement of the trust from claiming exemption u/s 11 and 12 of the Act.

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)

wrongly reported in the return of income in row vi(i) and this mistake has been rectified by filing revised return of income by the assessee on 26.12.2024. The Ld. A.R further submits that there are several citations in which it has been held that technical irregularities or mistakes

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1441/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

having failed to do so, the Appellant cannot use the rectification route as a backdoor entry to have time beyond filing of a return/ revised returns for claiming such refunds. This is not the intent of the law. 6.5 Further, the decision of the Apex Court is required ... income as not taxable is a fresh claim which cannot be entertained under section 154 and that the assessee should have filed the revised return of income under section 139(5). The ld AR argued that Circular No. 68 as relied on by the ld. AR is to correct

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1405/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1404/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

Trans Union Llc, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1403/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 3675/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

filed the return of income for AY 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs.52,38,02,42,740/- on 30.11.2018. The assessee filed the revised return on 06.02.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 52,95,57,55,900/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly ... order of the NCLT, BFIL would not be in existence. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee while filing the revised return of income has included the income from the rural advances extended by BFIL on behalf of the assessee and the revenue accepted the income offered

Indusind Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 1842/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

Indusind Bank Ltd, 8Th Floor, Tower 1, One India Bulls Centre Delisle Road vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1841/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

return of income for AY 2018-19 declaring total income of Rs. 52,38,02,42,740/- on 30.11.2018. The assessee filed the revised return on 06.02.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 52,95,57,55,900/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the statutory notices were duly served ... order of the NCLT, BFIL would not be in existence. The ld. AR also submitted that the assessee while filing the revised return of income has included the income from the rural advances extended by BFIL on behalf of the assessee and the revenue accepted the income offered

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Private Limited, Haryana

ITA 1248/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

ITA 1247/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

declaring a total income of Rs.67,86,62,066/- and book profit under section 115JB of Rs.138,96,15,026/-. Thereafter, a revised return was filed on 31.03.2014 declaring a loss of Rs.498,53,50,971/- under the normal provisions, with the book profit remaining unchanged. The case was selected

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Private Limited, Haryana

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

ITA 1246/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Private Limited, Haryana

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

ITA 1245/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Private Limited, Gurgaon

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar