“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

Pramod Lakra, DCIT Circle 11.1, Kolkata vs. Philips India Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2283/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

that the assessee company had filed its original return of income for AY 2012-13 declaring total income of ₹142,34,80,660/-. Thereafter, revised return was filed declaring total income at ₹ 1,41,76,98,430/-. The assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act was completed

D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Philips India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2281/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Philips India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2280/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250

Kdp Buildwell P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 524/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. Kdp Buildwell Pvt. Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, A-213, 1St Floor, Shanti Gopal Chamber, Ghaziabad. Vikas Marg, Shakarpur, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan :Aabcs6353E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Order : 25.06.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Iv, Kanpur [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 23.03.2018 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Was Conducted On 26.09.2014 On The Premises Of The Assessee Comprising Kdp/Mgp Group Of Cases. Based On The Incriminating Material Found During The Search, A Notice

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 140ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153C

No.1120/Bang/2022 dated 20.02.2023 and it was held that assessee has already paid admitted tax on its original return of income and assessee has filed revised return of income u/s 153C and did not pay the tax on the revised income and they held that the disputed tax i.e. not paid ... record. We observed that assessee has paid the due tax on the admitted income in 5 original return of income. However, assessee has filed revised return of income u/s 153A declaring additional income which was disclosed during search, however not paid the abovesaid due tax on the revised return

Brajendra Vikram Singh, Jalaun vs. ITO Ward 2(1)(5), Orai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 120/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Brajendra Vikram Singh Ward-2(1)(5), 58, Ram Nagar Ajnari Vs. Orai-285001. Road, Orai, Jalaun-285001. Pan-Ciops6701G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Shailendra Srivastava. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/06/2025

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 6

individual and filed his return of income for impugned year on 26.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs.79,510/-. The assessee also filed the revised return. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The AO has not taken cognizance of the revised return for the sole reason that ... facts as well by making the assessment on the basis of a non- est Original) return in place of a validly filed revised return. 02. The Income Tax Officer as well as CIT(A) grossly erred in law and on facts as well by not considering the replies, related evidences

Universal Biomass Energy Private Limited, Guruharsahai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Ferozepur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 80I

after the issue of notice under s. 143(2) the intimation issued under s. 143(1) is of any consequence, more particularly when a revised return has been filed. Notice under sub-s. (2) of s. 143 is relatable to the first return. The intimation under

Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi, Ernakulam

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

ITA 568/COCH/2023[A.Y 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12 Roads & Bridges Development .......... Appellant Corporation Of Kerala Ltd. Preethi Building, M.V. Road, Palarivattom Ernakulam 682025 [Pan: Aabcr7841Q] Vs. Acit, Corporte Circles-2(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Remya S. Menon, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sundarasan S., Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.03.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Which Is A Wholly Owned By Government Of Kerala Undertaking. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction, Development, Operation & Maintenance Of Railway Over Bridges, Highway Projects, Etc. The 2 Roads & Bridges Development Corporation Of Kerala Ltd. Original Return Of Income For Ay 2011-12 Was Filed On 28.09.2011 Declaring Loss Of Rs. 9,65,43,016/-. The Same Was Revised On 07.01.2013 At A Loss Of Rs. 5,11,71,331/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Corporate Circle 2(1), Kochi Vide Order Dated 30.03.2014 At Total Income Of Rs.2,10,68,827/- Before Set Off Of Brought Forward Loss. Ultimately The Income Was Assessed At Nil Income. Subsequently, The Ao Issued A Notice U/S. 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) On 10.04.2015 For The Reason That Income Escaped Assessment To Tax For Following Reasons: -

For Appellant: Smt. Remya S. Menon, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT.DR

Section 139(4)Section 143Section 148

correctly taken. iii) The returned loss was wrongly adopted from the original return instead of loss as per revised return. 3. Subsequently, the assessment was completed by the AO at total income of Rs. 7,30,30,534/- vide order dated 31.12.2016 u/s. 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. While ... decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AY 2005-06. However, refused to take cognizance of the loss declared in the revised return of Rs. 5,11,71,331/- by holding that the revised return was filed after the due date. The learned CIT(A) also confirmed

Rama Shanker Pareek, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 7(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69CSection 80C

directed Assessing Officer that while computing income of assessee-Held, Assessing Officer recorded that assessee filed return in his return of income and revised return of income, as "It was also noted by undersigned that assessee had returned income of Rs.3,56,170/- in his return of income ... revised return of income, assessee returned income of Rs.5,00,660–Thus, during re-assessment, Assessing Officer was very well aware i.e., return was filed by assessee—AO recorded that on verification of details in ITD, it was seen that assessee has not filed return and assessee has not complied

Enochy Children Relief Society, Jaipur vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 236/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, C.A

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 13(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 288

also an undisputed fact that the assessee realizing the mistake that the wrong audit report had been filed, took voluntary steps to file revised return on 16.3.2020 u/s 139(5) of the Act accompanied with audit report u/s 12A(b) of the Act in form 10B. On perusal ... before the extended due date and the audit report was also obtained on or before the due date. We also find that the revised return was also processed by the CPC but the benefit of exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Act were denied on the sole ground that

Enochy Children Relief Society, Jaipur vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1, Jaipur

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

ITA 235/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, C.A

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 12Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 13(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 288

Shree Cement Limited, Bangur Nagar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

Supreme Court in para 9 of the order has laid down that assessee cannot be permitted to substitute the original return by filing a revised return under 139(5) of the Act and taking a contrary stand and/or claiming the exemption which was specifically not claimed earlier while filing ... original return of income. Apex Court in the case cited supra stated that even a revised return could not be of any help to the appellant as the 40 Shree Cement Limited vs. ACIT Apex Court has stated that by filing the revised return, the assessee cannot be permitted

Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1 Panchkula, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 652/CHANDI/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Jun 2025AY 2020-2021

Section 10Section 10(10)(i)Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

return filed on 24/09/2020 the assessee claimed exemption for leave encashment received on retirement amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed his revised return of income claiming the exemption of whole of the leave encashment received on retirement amounting to Rs.20,87,840/-. 3.1 The case

Ntt India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Asstt Comm. of Income Tax-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2491/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanntt India Private Vs. Assessment Unit/Nfac/Dcit Limited Circle 15(1)(2), 1701-1704, B Wing, One Mumbai Bkc, Level 17, G-Block, Aayakar Bhavan, Plot No. C-65, Bandra Mumbai. Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051. Pan/Gir No. Aaacd2145G (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 271ASection 92C

erred in granting TDS credit of Rs 49,42,94,260/- against Rs 49,65,81,039/- as claimed in the revised return of income filed by the Appellant. The Appellant, therefore, prays the Hon'ble Members to direct the learned AO to grant balance credit ... erred in granting TDS credit of Rs 49,42,94,260/- against Rs 49,65,81,039/- as claimed in the revised return of income filed by the assessee. 32. In the given facts and circumstances, we restore this ground to the file of AO for fresh adjudication with respect

Shriram Gram Vikas Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir Exemp, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 237/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

Commissioner, who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by observing and holding as under: “That the Assessee could have filed revised return to rectify the mistake committed while filing original return. It is seen that the Assessee had filed revised Form 10B with a delay ... return of income 4 ITA.No.237/NAG/2024 and/or claim of frivolous or false claim and, therefore, the Assessee was not supposed to file the revised return of income, as opined by the Ld. Commissioner. In fact, there seems to be inadvertent mistake in mentioning the details of the accumulated income

Mm Import and Export, Muvattupuzha vs. Income Tax Officer, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 364/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mm Import & Export .......... Appellant 709E, Avoly Panchayat, Adooparambu Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam 686661 [Pan: Aaofm2699B] Vs. Ito, Ward-1 & Tps, Thodupuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Noida [Cit(A)] Dated 31.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Export & Import Of Timber. The Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Was Filed On 30.09.2013 Declaring Nil Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Ito, Ward-1, Thodupuzha (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 12.12.2016 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) After Making Addition Of Rs. 4,19,849/-

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 40

also made addition of Rs. 35,46,000/- which was shown in the original return of income but not shown in the revised return of income. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the action of the AO. 4. Being ... learned Sr. DR. 6. On a mere perusal of the assessment order it would reveal that the AO, without taking into consideration the revised returned income, merely proceeded to assess the income based on the original return of income filed. The appellant should have been given reasonable opportunity to explain

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. N K Proteins Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 546/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

return of income f r current year. However, this contention of Appellant cannot be accepted for the reason that Appellant has not filed any revised return of income for AY 2011-12. The Appellant has simplicitor submitted revised computation of total income for such year. While passing the Assessment Order

N K Proteins Pvt. Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 464/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

Nrb Bearings Limited, Mumbai vs. Joint Comissioner of Income Tax (OSD) - Circle 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3019/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Makadia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

declaring total income at Rs. 78,63,33,570. The Return was processed u/s. 143(1) on 04.09.2012. 3. Subsequently, the Appellant filed a revised return declaring total income of Rs.75,88,75,980/-on 07.03.2013 and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) on 28.03.2013. Thereafter the case

Nrb Bearings Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3018/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Mayur Makadia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

Ultima Realtors Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 3(3) (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2628/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi, A/RFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. D/R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 246ASection 250

assessee filed its return of income on 30/09/2014 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 27/11/2014. Thereafter the assessee filed a revised return of income on 28/03/2016 which was also processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25/04/2016. 5. The assessment was reopened