“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

Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:30/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 769, Spencer Plaza, Anna Salai, Vs. Corporate Ward- 4(1), Mount Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan:Aaacm-4614-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/ Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Vide Order Dated 07.11.2024. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020-21 On 17.11.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,20,57,920/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed By The Ao, Cpc, Bangalore On 29.12.2021 & Raised A Demand Of Rs.93,79,350/- By Denying The Beneficial Tax Rate As Per Section 115Baa Of The Act & By Applying The Tax Rate Of 30%.

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T

Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 154

facts, wherein in the original return of income the assessee had claimed benefit under section 10B of the Act and thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee foregoing the claim of benefit of section 10B of the Act. As an afterthought the assessee filed a declaration ... 491/446 ITR 1. The assessee furnished the original return taking the benefit of section 10B and did not carry forward the loss. Thereafter, a revised return was filed foregoing the claim of deduction u/s 10B. The AO rejected the withdrawal of exemption under section 10B by holding that assessee

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1663/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT

Section 14ASection 92C

itself has restricted the claim of weighted deduction for capital expenditure to the extent of Rs.87,88,04,510/- and therefore in absence of revised return, the assessee could not be allowed further deduction. In respect of ITA Nos.1402 & 1663/Chny/2024 (AY 2019-20) M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd. :: 20 :: quantification ... assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and allowed the claim for deduction expenditure made through such revised computation and not through a revised return of income? 2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1) Ltu - II, Chennai

ITA 1402/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1402/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-Ii, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1663/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Ncc-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Department By : Ms.Ann Marry Baby, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT

Section 14ASection 92C

Avinash S Sadamate, ACIT, Circle 3 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Rashmi Infrastructure Developers Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the Revenue's appeal and Cross

ITA 6605/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal / Jay Bhansali, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT DR)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 801B(10)Section 801B(10)(c)

amount as 'On-money' in cash from various purchasers of flats sold to them by the assessee. Before completion of assessment, it filed a Revised return u/s 139(5) of the Act of income declaring total income of Rs. Nil after claiming deduction ... deduction u/s 80IB(10) on the ground that no claim of such deduction was made in the original return but by way of revised return. Besides, he made separate addition of on वायकर अपीलीय अधिकार EASY AND OME TAX APPELLATE TRIRINAL Page 5 ITA No. 6605/Mum/2024 CO No. 15/Mum/2025

Satyendra Kumar, Gandhidham vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Gandhidham

ITA 909/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.909/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) Satyendra Kumar Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Plot No-72 Ward-7B., Ito Ward – 1, Gandhidham, Kutch - 370201 Gandhidham - 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeapk7626J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24 / 04 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/ 07 /2025

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. L. Solanki, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 250

parti assessment order. 3. Facts of the Case The assessee filed return of income declaring 25,75,000/- the assessee filed his revised return of income on 01/11/2020 declaring taxable income of Rs. 20,65,970/- and claiming refund. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the assessee ... fixed for hearing on 14.07.2021. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the reasons. 1. Reduction of income in revised return and clamed of refund. The AO has issued number of notices for assessment to the assessee, all notices remain uncompiled with by the assessee. An order

Shankar Lal Ludhani Through Lata Devi Ludhani As Legal Heir, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 406/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271A

applicable for this A.Y. i.e. A.Y.2017-18. The assessee has also argued that "It may kindly be observed that the survey was conducted on 12.02.2018, Revised Return of income was filed on 27.02.2018, tax under section 115BBE was deposited on 23.02.2018. All these actions were taken during a space ... undisclosed income (surrendered during the course of survey and shown in the revised return and also in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961) of Rs.27,00,000/-, was levied keeping in view of the default committed by the assessee

Lalit Prakash, Lucknow vs. CIT(A), Lucknow

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 474/LKW/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Lalit Prakash V. The Cit(A) 8A/292, Vrindavan Yojana Lucknow Raebareilly Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aivpp9819K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Santosh Verma, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Santosh Verma, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 11.08.2020, declaring a total income of Rs.7,42,700/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 30.11.2020, disclosing Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.2,650/- on the full value consideration of Rs.17,80,000/-. The case

Incometax Officer Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Deepa Rajendrakumar Agrawal, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2206/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 21.06.2014 declaring total income of Rs.2,13,744/-. Thereafter, a revised return was filed on 09.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.3,67,934/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on the ground of suspicious transaction

Incometax Officer Ward 3(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Deepa Rajendrakumar Agrawal, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2205/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151

Sri Akshiya Shiradi Saibaba Trust, Pondcherry vs. ITO, Pondicherry

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

ITA 198/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.P.M.Kathir, Advocate for Mr.T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

assessee to unjust tax by holding that no return was filed either as a “Regular Assessee” or as an “Association of Person” merely because revised return was not filed under Section 139(4) of the Act, within a time specified under Section 139 of the Act. 23. The last date

M/S Teracom (P) Ltd, Ponda vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Panaji

In the result, the Stay applications filed by the assessee are infactious and are dismissed, and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. Nos. 2/Pan/2025 & S A.2/Pan/2025 I T A. Nos. 3/Pan/2025 & S A.3/Pan/2025 (A.Y. 2010-11 & A.Y.2011-12 ) Teracom Ltd, Vs Jcit-Range-2, 55,1 St Floor, Aayakarbhavan, Patto, . Ponda Commerce Center Panaji, Ponda-403401, Goa-403001. Goa. . Pan .No. Aabct5254B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Rama Rivonkar.Ar Revenue By Shri.Capt Pradeep Arya.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 02.07.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesse Against The Separate Orders Of The Nfac Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Common & Similar, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & A Consolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Up Ita No.2/Pan/2025, A.Y 2010-11 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated. The Assessee Has Raised The Grounds Of Appeal Challenging The Order Of The Cit(A)

return of income for A.Y.2010-11 on 27-09-2010 disclosing a total income of Rs.3,53,49,819/-. Subsequently the assessee has filed revised return of income due to amalgamation of scantec india Pvt Ltd disclosing a total income of Rs.4,15,17,397/- and the book profits computed u/sec115JB

M/S Teracom (P) Ltd, Ponda vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Panaji

In the result, the Stay applications filed by the assessee are infactious and are dismissed, and the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2/PAN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Arvind Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 466/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamblearvind Limited, Dcit Vs. Naroda Road, Nfac, Delhi Ahmedabad-380025 (Dcit, Circle 1(1)(1), [Pan : Aabca 2398 D] Ahmedabad) Arvind Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1)(1), Naroda Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380025 [Pan : Aabca 2398 D]

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

normal provisions of the Act and Book Profit u/s 115JB of the Act at Rs.269,08,73,462/- and thereafter, the assessee had filed revised return on 30.03.2019, declaring total income at Rs.243,07,47,560/- under normal provision of the Act and Book profit u/s 115JB ... question raised in this appeal relates to whether the appellant assessee could make a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. The assessment year in question was 1995-96. The return was filed on 30-11-1995, by the appellant for the assessment year in question

Arvind Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 349/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. B.Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 56/HYD/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

filed a petition before the CBDT u/sec.119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking permission 20 ITA.No.1865/Hyd./2019 & ITA.No.56/Hyd./2020 to file revised returns along with re-casted books of accounts as on 31.03.2009. The application filed by M/s. Tech Mahindra Limited has been rejected by the CBDT ... based on the revised financials of the petitioner company for the year ending 31.03.2009. The petitioner company has further directed to file a revised return for assessment years 2003-2004 to 2008-2009 based on the audited financial statements for the said years along with the audited financial statements

Byrraju Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-8, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee and the appeal filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1865/HYD/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 2092/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri V. J. AsraniFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh SR DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 250

Maharashtra and had filed its return of income dated 29.09.2009, declaring total income at Rs. 5,38,58,02,602/- and has filed revised return dated 27.03.2010, declaring total income at Rs. 3,92,85,08,611/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The assessee

Vivekananda Math, North Twenty Four Parganas vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Exempt, Kolkata

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

ITA 471/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 11Section 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)

activities mainly in the field of running orphanage for poor boys and girls etc. The assessee filed return of income on 12.04.2023 and revised return of income on 26.05.2023. Audit report was submitted on 19.09.2023 but as per the submission of the Ld. AR is that they could

Shamkant Vikram Thakare, Dhule vs. ITO Ward 1, Dhule

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

ITA 905/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Pune01 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 250Section 5

cash deposited with supporting documents. 3 Shamkant Vikram Thakare 5.1 The Assessing Officer observed that assessee has shown the agricultural income in the revised return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was stated by the assessee that cash deposits are out of agricultural income derived

Sagarmal Sohanlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3176/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Sagarmal Sohanlal Income Tax Officer, Jain, Ward 3(4), Kalyan, M/S. Roopsangam Rani Mansion, Jewellers, 2Nd Floor, Murbad Road, Shop No.6, Omkar Society, Vs. Kalyan West, M.G. Road, Maharashtra – 421 301 Opp. Railway Station, Dombivli (West) Maharashtra – 421 201 Pan: Aatpj4675K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.A. Kulkarni, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

second issue is with respect to the addition of ₹1,12,000/- which has already been offered to income by the assessee in the revised return filed and therefore, same cannot be added once again. Accordingly, the learned Assessing Officer directed to accept the return of income revised