← 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

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 111/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

return of income for AY 2009-10 on 30.09.2009 declaring a total income of Rs.144,68,01,374/-. Subsequently the assessee filed a revised return of income on 08.02.2010 and also second time on 30.03.2011 declaring total income of Rs.160,06,53,482/- and Rs.145,57,22,635/- respectively ... Expenditure in relation to income not Includible in total income (A+B+C) 1,20,86,791 Less: Already disallowed in Revised Return Balance amount taxable 1,79,463 1,19,07,328 9. Subsequently the assessee submitted a revised computation stating that the interest disallowance computed under Rule

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

return of income for AY 2009-10 on 30.09.2009 declaring a total income of Rs. 144,68,01,374/-. Subsequently the assessee filed a revised return of income on 08.02.2010 and also second time on 30.03.2011 declaring total income ... claiming only the commission paid to M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The assessee on 31.03.2011 filed a second revised return wherein the disallowance towards commission expenditure was reduced to Rs. 2,09,37,762/-. During the course of assessment, the assessee submitted that it has been able to obtain confirmation

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5750/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh S. Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

return of income for AY 2009-10 on 30.09.2009 declaring a total income of Rs.144,68,01,374/-. Subsequently the assessee filed a revised return of income on 08.02.2010 and also second time on 30.03.2011 declaring total income of Rs.160,06,53,482/- and Rs.145,57,22,635/- respectively ... Expenditure in relation to income not Includible in total income (A+B+C) Less: Already disallowed in Revised Return Balance amount taxable 1,20,86,791 1,79.463 1,19,07,328 Subsequently the assessee submitted a revised computation stating that the interest disallowance computed under Rule

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5749/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

return of income for AY 2009-10 on 30.09.2009 declaring a total income of Rs. 144,68,01,374/-. Subsequently the assessee filed a revised return of income on 08.02.2010 and also second time on 30.03.2011 declaring total income ... claiming only the commission paid to M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The assessee on 31.03.2011 filed a second revised return wherein the disallowance towards commission expenditure was reduced to Rs. 2,09,37,762/-. During the course of assessment, the assessee submitted that it has been able to obtain confirmation

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4172/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &
Section 115Section 14ASection 250

return of income for AY 2009-10 on 30.09.2009 declaring a total income of Rs. 144,68,01,374/-. Subsequently the assessee filed a revised return of income on 08.02.2010 and also second time on 30.03.2011 declaring total income ... claiming only the commission paid to M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The assessee on 31.03.2011 filed a second revised return wherein the disallowance towards commission expenditure was reduced to Rs. 2,09,37,762/-. During the course of assessment, the assessee submitted that it has been able to obtain confirmation

Geeta Devi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO WD 1(4), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

During the assessment proceedings the assessee suo-moto vide reply filed on 22.06.2019 submitted that "3. The requisite computation of total income (as per revised return of income) enclosed herewith. The assessee voluntary & suo moto enclosed revised return of income along with challan Rs. 65860/- dated 19.06.2019 & challan ... interest income as per form 26AS for the relevant year, now as per advice of advocate the assessee suo moto and voluntary enclosed herewith revised return of income for his correct income and income tax payable thereon u/s 140A of IT Act of 1961 of Rs. 65860/- & Rs. 26260/- have

Surendra Pal Singh Sahni, Kota vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2024[2005-06]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

During the assessment proceedings the assessee suo-moto vide reply filed on 22.06.2019 submitted that "3. The requisite computation of total income (as per revised return of income) enclosed herewith. The assessee voluntary & suo moto enclosed revised return of income along with challan Rs. 65860/- dated 19.06.2019 & challan ... interest income as per form 26AS for the relevant year, now as per advice of advocate the assessee suo moto and voluntary enclosed herewith revised return of income for his correct income and income tax payable thereon u/s 140A of IT Act of 1961 of Rs. 65860/- & Rs. 26260/- have

Vipin Dwivedi, Lucknow vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 241/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Vipin Dwivedi V. The Assessing Officer C-272, Nirala Nagar Nfac Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aiapd4894M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69

notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 01.11.2022, declaring the same income as declared in the revised return of income filed on 21.10.2016, i.e., Rs.49,32,490/-. The AO also issued statutory notices to the assessee requiring the assessee to furnish requisite

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

ITA 362/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

section 10 of the Act, hence the authorities were not justified in denying the exemption as claimed. 7. Because the fetters of filing the revised return and raising a fresh claim before the CIT(A) is not applicable, the authorities below have failed to appreciate the law and have arbitrarily ... were not justified in denying the exemption as claimed. ITA No.360, 361 & 362/LKW/2020 Page 7 of 24 07. Because the fetters of filing the revised return and raising a fresh claim before the CIT(A) is not applicable, the authorities below have failed to appreciate the law and have arbitrarily

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

Accordingly, the same are being dismissed as having become academic in nature

ITA 361/LKW/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Singh Chauhan, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

section 10 of the Act, hence the authorities were not justified in denying the exemption as claimed. 7. Because the fetters of filing the revised return and raising a fresh claim before the CIT(A) is not applicable, the authorities below have failed to appreciate the law and have arbitrarily ... were not justified in denying the exemption as claimed. ITA No.360, 361 & 362/LKW/2020 Page 7 of 24 07. Because the fetters of filing the revised return and raising a fresh claim before the CIT(A) is not applicable, the authorities below have failed to appreciate the law and have arbitrarily

M/S. Barrows Blue Bells School, Baharaich vs. The I.T.O. (E), Lucknow

ITA 360/LKW/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148

Section 10 of the Act, hence the authorities were not justified in denying the exemption as claimed. 7. Because the fetters of filing the revised return and raising a fresh claim before the CIT(A) is not applicable, the authorities below have failed to appreciate the law and have arbitrarily ... Section 10 of the Act, hence the authorities were not justified in denying the exemption as claimed. 07. Because the fetters of filing the revised return and raising a fresh claim before the CIT(A) is not applicable, the authorities below have failed to appreciate the law and have arbitrarily

Jt. Cti (OSD), Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 791/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

return of income. However, the claim has been lodged by the assessee only during the assessment proceedings. Further, no revised return has been filed by the assessee to include claim of depreciation or amortization. In case of Goetze (India) Ltd [2006] 157 TAXMAN 1 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court ... laid down that an assessee cannot amend, a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. Thus, in this case, in the absence of revised return to claim depreciation benefit on alleged goodwill, the same cannot be allowed to the assessee

Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 516/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

return of income. However, the claim has been lodged by the assessee only during the assessment proceedings. Further, no revised return has been filed by the assessee to include claim of depreciation or amortization. In case of Goetze (India) Ltd [2006] 157 TAXMAN 1 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court ... laid down that an assessee cannot amend, a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. Thus, in this case, in the absence of revised return to claim depreciation benefit on alleged goodwill, the same cannot be allowed to the assessee

The DCIT, Cir-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 2224/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

return of income. However, the claim has been lodged by the assessee only during the assessment proceedings. Further, no revised return has been filed by the assessee to include claim of depreciation or amortization. In case of Goetze (India) Ltd [2006] 157 TAXMAN 1 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court ... laid down that an assessee cannot amend, a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. Thus, in this case, in the absence of revised return to claim depreciation benefit on alleged goodwill, the same cannot be allowed to the assessee

M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 2008/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

return of income. However, the claim has been lodged by the assessee only during the assessment proceedings. Further, no revised return has been filed by the assessee to include claim of depreciation or amortization. In case of Goetze (India) Ltd [2006] 157 TAXMAN 1 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court ... laid down that an assessee cannot amend, a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. Thus, in this case, in the absence of revised return to claim depreciation benefit on alleged goodwill, the same cannot be allowed to the assessee

M/S. Nirma Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue and the appeals for AYs 2012-

ITA 2007/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 234BSection 271

return of income. However, the claim has been lodged by the assessee only during the assessment proceedings. Further, no revised return has been filed by the assessee to include claim of depreciation or amortization. In case of Goetze (India) Ltd [2006] 157 TAXMAN 1 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court ... laid down that an assessee cannot amend, a return filed by him for making a claim for deduction other than by filing a revised return. Thus, in this case, in the absence of revised return to claim depreciation benefit on alleged goodwill, the same cannot be allowed to the assessee

Pokharna Educational Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1244/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 10Section 10(23)Section 10(230)(iad)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 57

case, the Hon'ble Court held that a claim not made in the return of income cannot be entertained by the AO unless a revised return is filed. However, in the present case, since the claim was made in the original return itself, the said ruling has no application whatsoever

Nanda Kishore Ravula, Hyderabad vs. ADIT (International Tax)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.552/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Nanda Kishore Ravula Vs. Adit (International Hyderabad Tax)-2 [Pan :Agupr0664F] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/06/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/06/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.01.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020- 21 On 15.12.2020, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,08,11,550/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income On 30.03.2021 & Claimed Foreign Tax Credit (“Ftc”) Of 2 Nanda Kishore Ravula

For Appellant: Shri Nikhill Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 91

filed his original return of income for the A.Y.2020- 21 on 15.12.2020, declaring total income of Rs.1,08,11,550/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return of income on 30.03.2021 and claimed Foreign Tax Credit (“FTC”) of 2 Nanda Kishore Ravula Rs.21,57,343/-. The return of income filed ... contended that he has filed return of income on or before the due date provided u/s 139(1) of the Act and also filed revised return within the due date provided u/s 139(5) of the Act. The assessee filed Form 67 on 01.03.2021, before the AO passed assessment order

Satyanarayan Somani (HUF), Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

ITA 389/HYD/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Sridhar Jhawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.A.R
Section 10(38)Section 144Section 147Section 148

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 terms of a notice issued under

Thejaswini Jakkaraju, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(2), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/BANG/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: S/Shri B.S. Balachandra, Advocate & Gurudath, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 87A

filing this appeal. The delay was condoned. The appellant also made written submissions. The ld. CIT (A) held that assessee has revised return of income. The revision of return of income is available only when an error or omission in the original return is found. The assessee opted from ... regime to old tax regime is not an error or an omission which would have allowed the assessee to file revised return and therefore revised return cannot be filed. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 5. The ld. AR submitted that assessee has failed to claim tax rebate