← 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

Creamline Dairy Products Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1156/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA, K C Devdas And CA C Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80J

supporting evidences for the said claim. The assessee- 5 ITA.Nos.1156, 1157 & 1183/Hyd./2024 company has submitted Form 10DA dated 29.03.2018 and thereafter, filed revised return and claimed deduction. The Assessing Officer after considering relevant submissions of the assessee-company and also taking note of the fact that, the assessee ... Goetze (India) Ltd., vs., CIT [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC) submitted that, if an assessee makes a fresh claim of deduction by filing revised return of income, then, the Assessing Officer is bound to consider the said claim in accordance with law. Although, the assessee filed relevant details to prove

Welkin Telecom Infra Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 668/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

original return of income for AY 2014-15 was filed on 26.11.2014 showing total income of ₹4,94,33,170/-. The assessee filed a revised return of income on 16.04.2015 showing total income of ₹4,23,15,150/-. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was made

Edge Steels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 12(2)2, Mumbai

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

ITA 635/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bandra, Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 138Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 254Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

reason for revision was that in the original return, the assessee had not claimed bad debts of Rs. 43,61,237/- but in revised return the bad debt is claimed U/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act. 5. The assessee claimed that the amount

ACIT 531, Mumbai vs. Teleperformance Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1484/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

ought not to be disturbed in the subsequent years i.e., in AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15.” In argument, the Ld.AR submitted that through revised return the assessee claimed the depreciation on goodwill. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee brought the facts before the Ld.AO by a letter dated 16/04/2015 ... submissions and there is no further enquiry made. In C.O. 87/Mum/2024 Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd argument, the assessee further stated that in the revised return for impugned assessment year, the said depreciation on goodwill is duly reflected in the Schedule ‘DOA’ and the said table is duly annexed

Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 1452/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

ought not to be disturbed in the subsequent years i.e., in AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15.” In argument, the Ld.AR submitted that through revised return the assessee claimed the depreciation on goodwill. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee brought the facts before the Ld.AO by a letter dated 16/04/2015 ... submissions and there is no further enquiry made. In C.O. 87/Mum/2024 Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd argument, the assessee further stated that in the revised return for impugned assessment year, the said depreciation on goodwill is duly reflected in the Schedule ‘DOA’ and the said table is duly annexed

Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Ncome Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 1451/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

ought not to be disturbed in the subsequent years i.e., in AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15.” In argument, the Ld.AR submitted that through revised return the assessee claimed the depreciation on goodwill. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee brought the facts before the Ld.AO by a letter dated 16/04/2015 ... submissions and there is no further enquiry made. In C.O. 87/Mum/2024 Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd argument, the assessee further stated that in the revised return for impugned assessment year, the said depreciation on goodwill is duly reflected in the Schedule ‘DOA’ and the said table is duly annexed

Teleperformance Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -5, Mumbai

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

ITA 977/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

ought not to be disturbed in the subsequent years i.e., in AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15.” In argument, the Ld.AR submitted that through revised return the assessee claimed the depreciation on goodwill. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee brought the facts before the Ld.AO by a letter dated 16/04/2015 ... submissions and there is no further enquiry made. In C.O. 87/Mum/2024 Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd argument, the assessee further stated that in the revised return for impugned assessment year, the said depreciation on goodwill is duly reflected in the Schedule ‘DOA’ and the said table is duly annexed

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2458/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32(1)

assessee on this issue on the basis that the assessee has not explained why such a claim was not made by filing a revised return. Accordingly, the action of the AO in not entertaining the claim of the assessee was upheld. In conformity, the AO passed the impugned final assessment

Simon India Ltd Staff Superannuation Fund, Delhi vs. AO Range-47, Circle Exempt-1(1), Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2706/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(25)(iv)Section 11Section 154

same was rightly rejected by the CPC as the said claim have either have been made in return of income or revised return of income. Instead, the assessee filed application for rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. In First Appellate proceedings 3 none appeared to represent the assessee despite service

DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi vs. Sh Basant Jain, Delhi

ITA 2761/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 68

under section 139(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') declaring income of Rs.17,60,650/-. Subsequently, he revised return of income on 20.11.2017 and the income was declared at Rs.19,40,650/-. After claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A at Rs.1,67,500/-, the income

M/S Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2539/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 92C

reported in 284 ITR 323 dismissed the ground of the assessee by holding that assessee could have made this claim by filing revised return. 28. Counsel for the assessee appearing argued that the order of Goetz India Ltd. (supra) could not impinge upon the powers of Ld. CIT(A), therefore ... Goetz (supra) is highly misplaced since SC judgment was in context of power of AO to entertain a fresh claim made otherwise than by revised return. The Supreme Court, however, made it clear that the decision in Goetze India Limited (supra) was restricted to the power of Assessing Authority

Gujarat Guardian Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 159/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 92C

reported in 284 ITR 323 dismissed the ground of the assessee by holding that assessee could have made this claim by filing revised return. 28. Counsel for the assessee appearing argued that the order of Goetz India Ltd. (supra) could not impinge upon the powers of Ld. CIT(A), therefore ... Goetz (supra) is highly misplaced since SC judgment was in context of power of AO to entertain a fresh claim made otherwise than by revised return. The Supreme Court, however, made it clear that the decision in Goetze India Limited (supra) was restricted to the power of Assessing Authority

Vgn Infra India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 573/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 573/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar & Shri. I. Dinesh, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, J.C.I.T
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(6)Section 36(1)(va)

infrastructure. The assessee had filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18, admitting loss of Rs.13,03,28,701/-. Later, a revised return of income declaring total loss of Rs.18,65,40,072/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and accordingly, statutory notices u/s.143

Malani Holdings Private Limited, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1), Raipur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 316/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 316/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal & Praveen GoyalFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

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) of that section, or (b) fails to comply with all the term of a notice issued under

Sravan Kumar Ratakonda, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 398/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pavitran Kumar, SR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

Return of Income (“ROI”) for Assessment Year 2017– 18 on 28.06.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.12,57,960/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 29.08.2018, declaring total income of Rs.17,15,270/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny and a notice under Section

Netplast Pvt.Ltd., Kanpur vs. ACIT Circle 2(3)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 320/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 69C

Nirmala Devi, seller of the land calling for information with regards to cash deposits in her bank account. 2 25.02.2016 Filing of revised return of income by Sri Arpit Agarwal, Director of the appellant company 3 01.03.2016 Reply filed by Smt Nirmala Devi to ITO(I & CI) confirming then cash ... However, these grounds do not make a case for the addition. Firstly, the Director Arpit Agarwal revised his return of income and in the revised return of income, the source for payment of Rs.84lacs was included. The Director has already paid tax on the income as per revised return. Secondly

Rekha Rani Gupta, Burdwan (East) vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(1), Burdwan

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

ITA 1059/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1059/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Rekha Rani Gupta, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Burdwan Hossainpur, Purba Bardhaman Pin-713125 Pan No. : Bxvpg 1588 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr.Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 29.02.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Smt. Madhumita Das, Ld. Sr.Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was The Submission By The Ld. Ar That That The Assessee Had On The Basis Of The Form 26As Filed His Return Of Income. It Was The Submission That In The Form 26As It Was Shown That The Assessee Had Done Certain Contract Work For West Bengal State Electricity Board Burdwan Division. It Was The Submission That, In Fact, The Assessee Had Not Done Any Work. It Was The Submission That The West Bengal State Electricity Board Burdwan Division Had Also Clarified Before The Ao In Response To Notice U/S.133(6) Of The Act That The Assessee Has Not Done Any Work For Them. However, The Ao Added The Total Contract Amount As Shown In The Form 26As As Income

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 140

reply, ld. Sr. DR vehemently relied on the order of the ld. AO and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that no revised return filed by the assessee. It was the submission that in view of the provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the income cannot be recomputed ... unless revised return is filed. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the West Bengal State Electricity Board Burdwan Division has committed an error in the deduction and the credit of the TDS in respect

Varatharaj Venugopal, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Tirupur

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

ITA 1058/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1058/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Varatharaj Venugopal, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 13, Thiruvalluvar Nagar 4Th St., Ward 1(1), Nesavalar Colony, East P.N. Road, Tiruppur. Tirupur 641 602. [Pan:Aylpv5231F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Raghavan, Advocate (Virtual) For Shri R.C. Sachin, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Raised 2 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Raghavan, Advocate (virtual) for Shri R.C. Sachin, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 25.04.2022 to the assessee and in response to the said notice, the assessee filed revised return of income on 17.05.2022 admitting total income of ₹.4,34,460/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued various statutory notices under sections

Sumukh Suresh Bhardwaj, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 935/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Veerabasanagouda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

claimed FTC of Rs. 4,73,779/- u/s. 90 of the Act read with Article 24 of India Australia tax treaty (“DTAA”) in a revised return of income filed on 31.8.2018. The Assessee had not filed the Form 67 before filing the return of income. On realising the same ... Assessee filed Form 67 in support of claim of foreign tax credit on 18.04.2020. The revised return of income was . Page 7 of 10 processed by Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) electronically and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.05.2020 was passed disallowing the claim

Narendra Harjivandas Sanghvi, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(3)(1), Mumbai, Churchgate

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

ITA 1755/MUM/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

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

Section 143(1)Section 250

upholding the adjustment, assigned two principal reasons. First, that the error in reporting was attributable to the assessee and in the absence of a revised return, the CPC was justified in making the adjustment under Section 143(1)(a). Second, that the intimation under Section 143(1) stood merged with