“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

Savitrivasudeva Govinda Rao, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-3(3)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2072/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, Advocate

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

interest bearing deposits. The assessee having no other income, mainly used the interest income for his livelihood. During the A.Y., the assessee filed his revised return of income declaring a gross total income of Rs. 3,30,860/-. Thereafter the case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the issue

Dcm Shriram Limited, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Delhi

ITA 4328/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

ITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022, 704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Dcm Shriram Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 927/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

ITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022, 704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA

Dcm Shriram Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

ITA 2587/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

ITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022, 704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE

Dcm Shriiram Limited, New Delhi vs. Neac, New Delhi

ITA 704/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 80GSection 80ISection 92C

ITA Nos.927 & 2587/Del/2022, 704/Del/2021, 4328 & 1495/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA

Shaikh Mukhtar Shaikh Noor Attar, Mehkar vs. Ngp-W-(101)-(5), Khamgaon

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 367/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Darshana Bhaiya. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. DR

Section 147Section 148

under consideration, had shown gross receipt of Rs.17,85,230, and net profit of Rs.2,69,732, declaring net profit @ 15.10%, however, in the revised return of income filed under section 148 of the Act, has shown gross receipt of Rs.50,40,265, and net profit @8% i.e., Rs.4

Gangunaidu Sabbavarapu, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Visakhpatnam

ITA 177/VIZ/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(37)Section 250Section 254Section 96

occasioned because the assessee, being a salaried employee at the instance of his tax consultant an Income Tax Practitioner (ITP), had in his revised return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act dated 15.09.2023, inter alia disclosed the “Long Term Capital Gains" (LTCG ... assessee had filed his original return of income for A.Y 2023-24 on 20.06.2023, declaring his salary income. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 15-09- 2023, wherein, besides his salary income, he had declared Long Term Capital Gains (“LTCG”) of Rs.1

Deputy Commssioner of Income Tax, Visakhapatnam vs. Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.100/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Visakhapatnamportauthority Vs. Theasst.Cit -Circle-1(1) Administrative Office Building 4 Th Floor, Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530001 Mvp Road, Beside Post Office Andhra Pradesh-530001. Sector-8, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.103/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Dy.Cit Vs. Visakhapatnamportauthority Room No. 412, 4 Th Floor Administrative Office Building Prathyakshkar Bhavan Port Area, Visakhapatnam 530035 Mvp Double Road Andhra Pradesh Opp. Rythubazar Visakhapatnam – 530014 [Pan:Aaalv0035C] Andhrapradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)

required under the said Act. The assessee has filed its original return of income for the A.Y.2017-18 declaring Nil Income on 26.10.2017. Thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee declaring Nil Income on 27.03.2018. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly, Ld. Assessing Officer

Visakhapatnam Port Authority, Visakhapatnam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 100/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)

Vardhaman Vasundhara Family Trust, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Pune

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

ITA 741/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.741/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Vardhaman Vasundhara Family Trust, Income Tax Officer, S. No. 1A, F-1, Irani Market Compound, Ward – 7(1), Pune Yerwada, Pune-411006 Vs. Pan : Aactv6457E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 25-06-2025 Date Of 27-06-2025 Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

income on 19.07.2022 declaring total income of Rs.19,27,73,730/- and claiming refund of Rs.969/- which was subsequently revised by filing a revised return of income on 26.12.2022 without there being any change in the total income earlier declared by the assessee. The return was processed

Alnesh Akil Somji, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24

declaring total income of Rs.Nil (for assessment year 2019-20 at Rs.57,29,190/-). The assessee filed a revised return on 30.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs.Nil for assessment year 2018-19 (for assessment year 2019-20 revised return of income at Rs.49,44,190/-). A search and seizure action ... above, the Assessing Officer held the assessee’s claim is also not admissible as the assessee cannot make any additional claim in the revised return filed in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act which was not made in the return filed

Alnesh Mohamadakil Somji, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

ITA 34/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 24

declaring total income of Rs.Nil (for assessment year 2019-20 at Rs.57,29,190/-). The assessee filed a revised return on 30.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs.Nil for assessment year 2018-19 (for assessment year 2019-20 revised return of income at Rs.49,44,190/-). A search and seizure action ... above, the Assessing Officer held the assessee's claim is also not admissible as the assessee cannot make any additional claim in the revised return filed in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act which was not made in the return filed

Pcg Jubilant Tradepharm LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 3(2), Thane

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

ITA 6783/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Mihir Naniwadekar (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri. Leyaqat Ali, SR. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47

filed its return of income dated 30.10.2018, declaring total income at Rs. Nil. (loss of Rs. 1,01,850/-) and had filed revised return dated 30.11.2018, declaring income of Rs. Nil (loss of Rs. 1,01,850/-). The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, dated

Kerala State Warehousing Corporation, Ernakulam vs. DCIT Corporate Cir 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 73/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kerala State Warehousing Corporation .......... Appellant Mg Road, Ernakulam, Kerala-682016. Pan: Aabck1583G Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, .......... Respondent Corporate Circle-1(1), Central Revenue Building, Is Press Road, Kacheripady, Ernakulam, Kerala – 682018. Appellant By: Sri Harikrishnanunny, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Sri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) is confined to the powers of the assessing officer and accepting a claim without revised return and it does not affect the powers of CIT(A) or Tribunal to entertain a new ground or a legal contention. In view of this

DCIT-5(1), Bhopal vs. M P State Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Bhopal

ITA 774/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Order Sheet 9. ORDER UNDER SECTION :: 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 10. DATE OF ORDER :: 27-03-2015 ASSESSMENT ORDER 1. The revised return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 was filed on 30.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.2,16,24800/-. This case was selected for scrutiny

DCIT, Circle-5(1), Bhopal vs. M P State Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Bhopal

ITA 773/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

running business :: CIRCLE -2(1), BHOPAL :: As Per Order Sheet :: 143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 :: 27-03-2015 ASSESSMENT ORDER 1. The revised return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 was filed on 30.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs.2,16,24800/-. This case was selected for scrutiny

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Netai Bhadra, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2386/KOL/2024[2020]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata26 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 2386/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Income Tax Officer,…………………………..……Appellant Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054 -Vs.- Netai Bhadra,…………………………………......Respondent 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -And- C.O. No. 8/Kol/2025 (In Ita No. 2386/Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Netai Bhadra,…………………………………..Cross Objector 3/2,New Pally, Noapara, Kolkata-700090, West Bengal [Pan:Ahdpb8164C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…Respondent Ward-50(1), Kolkata, Uttarapan Building, Block-Ds-Ii & Iii, 2Nd Floor, Ultadanga, Kolkata-700054

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 272A(1)(d)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

filed his return of income in Form ITR 3 on 31/03/2021 declaring total income at Rs.28,57,690/-. Subsequently, the assessee also filed a revised return of income on 18.09.2021 declaring total income at Rs.22,72,880/-. The said revised return was processed under section

Haresh Kumar Mehta, Belgaum vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Hubli

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 504/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Bakiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R

Section 115BSection 132(4)

however could not disclosed this income in the return of income filed for the impugned year and the assessee has later on filed manual revised return disclosing the cash of Rs.36 lakhs and 60gms. gold as “other addition”. So, the act of the assessee is an afterthought. 6. We have

Amit Mishra, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(1), Pune

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

ITA 892/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Kishore Phadke

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 6(1)(c)

been completed making addition of Rs.29,01,810/- for the income from salary/pension shown in the original return but thereafter not shown in the revised return. Assessee challenged the addition before ld.CIT(A) but failed to furnish necessary details. Before me, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has made a request

The Gasper Education Society, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 871/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.871/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) The Gasper Education Society Vs Ito Ward-7 (1), Kolkata 40A, Ajc Bose Road, Nonapukur Tram Depot, Kolkata-700017 Pan No. :Aaabt 0159 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025 Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1074097940(1) For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Ld. Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.N.Barnwal, Ld. Cit-Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Return Filed By The Assessee Was Processed & The Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Wherein The Assessing Officer Has Denied The Assessee The Benefit Of Sections 11 & 12 Of The Act On The Ground That The Return Filed By The Assessee Was U/S.139(4) Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Also Confirmed The Order Of The Assessing Officer. Ld.Ar Drew Our Attention To The Circular Issued By The Cbdt In F.No.173/193/2019-Ita-

For Appellant: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ba)Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

time allowed under that section (i.e. u/s. 139 of the Act). Section 139 provides time limit for filing of original return, belated return, revised return as well as updated return. Thus, all these category of returns were eligible for consideration under the general time line of section