← 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

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 690/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

contentions and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee has made a suo moto offer of additional income in the revised returns filed under Section 148, and the Assessing Officer has accepted it without drawing any adverse inference regarding the genuineness or correctness of the books ... originally filed the returns of income for all the five assessment years well within the prescribed due dates. However, the filing of the revised returns of income under section 148 was triggered by certain discrepancies noted during survey proceedings conducted on 21.02.2019, particularly in relation to unverifiable food-related expenses

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 689/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

contentions and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee has made a suo moto offer of additional income in the revised returns filed under Section 148, and the Assessing Officer has accepted it without drawing any adverse inference regarding the genuineness or correctness of the books ... originally filed the returns of income for all the five assessment years well within the prescribed due dates. However, the filing of the revised returns of income under section 148 was triggered by certain discrepancies noted during survey proceedings conducted on 21.02.2019, particularly in relation to unverifiable food-related expenses

Rawat Prabhu Prakash Singh Chundawat HUF, Udaipur vs. Dcitl Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 687/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

contentions and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee has made a suo moto offer of additional income in the revised returns filed under Section 148, and the Assessing Officer has accepted it without drawing any adverse inference regarding the genuineness or correctness of the books ... originally filed the returns of income for all the five assessment years well within the prescribed due dates. However, the filing of the revised returns of income under section 148 was triggered by certain discrepancies noted during survey proceedings conducted on 21.02.2019, particularly in relation to unverifiable food-related expenses

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1350/HYD/2024[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 1998-99

Bench: Us:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

losses) and “book profit” under Section 115JA of the Act at Rs. 1,63,35,580/-. Thereafter, the assessee company on 01/02/199 filed a revised return of income, wherein after raising a claim of 100% deduction under Section 80IA r.w.s 33B of the Act as per clause (v) of subsection

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft

ITA 1340/HYD/2024[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2002-2003
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

losses) and “book profit” under Section 115JA of the Act at Rs. 1,63,35,580/-. Thereafter, the assessee company on 01/02/199 filed a revised return of income, wherein after raising a claim of 100% deduction under Section 80IA r.w.s 33B of the Act as per clause (v) of subsection

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3 (1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1339/HYD/2024[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2001-2002

Bench: Us:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

losses) and “book profit” under Section 115JA of the Act at Rs. 1,63,35,580/-. Thereafter, the assessee company on 01/02/199 filed a revised return of income, wherein after raising a claim of 100% deduction under Section 80IA r.w.s 33B of the Act as per clause (v) of subsection

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft

ITA 1338/HYD/2024[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2000-2001
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

losses) and “book profit” under Section 115JA of the Act at Rs. 1,63,35,580/-. Thereafter, the assessee company on 01/02/199 filed a revised return of income, wherein after raising a claim of 100% deduction under Section 80IA r.w.s 33B of the Act as per clause (v) of subsection

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad vs. Regency Ceramics Limited, Hyderabab

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft

ITA 1337/HYD/2024[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 1999-2000
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 33BSection 80HSection 80I

losses) and “book profit” under Section 115JA of the Act at Rs. 1,63,35,580/-. Thereafter, the assessee company on 01/02/199 filed a revised return of income, wherein after raising a claim of 100% deduction under Section 80IA r.w.s 33B of the Act as per clause (v) of subsection

Ila Jitendra Mehta, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5219/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133Section 139(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

hence, she was unable to revise it. However, to rectify the mistake she has filed revised computation of income and therefore to accept the revised return of income and not to levy penalty for her ignorance. Her return of income was filed on 30.03.2016 by her accountant by using ... realized its mistake and pointed out the same, the mistake should not be visited with penalty. Tribunal also held that time to file a revised return had expired. The Revenue Department being aggrieved by filling appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, challenged the order of the Tribunal in deleting

Seabird Marine Services Private Limited, Jamnagar vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Jamnagar, Jamangar

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

services. The assessee filed its original return of income on 28.10.2017, declaring total income at Rs.50,37,06,700/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed its revised return of income on 19.03.2019, declaring total income at Rs.49,85,50,620/-. The assessee`s case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Therefore

Balasaheb Kushaba Nivangune, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6 (2), Pune

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

ITA 2791/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Balasaheb Kushaba Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Pune. Ninvangune, S. No.41, Plot No.41, Jadhav Nagar, Vadagaon Budruk, Pune- 411041. Pan : Afmpn4866Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha Revenue By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 28.10.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order For Assessment Year 2017-18 Framed On 19.12.2019 By The Ito, Ward-6(2), Pune. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.12,69,000/- On Account Of Money Deposited In Cash In Bank Account During

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JhaFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and income for A.Y. 2017-18 declared at Rs.,903,750/-. Subsequently, revised return was also filed on 14.04.2017. Thereafter, the case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by validly serving notices

Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Uti Asset Management Company Limited Employees Provident Fund, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2022/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2022/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Ito, 23(3)(1), Mumbai V/S. Uti Asset Management 5Th Floor, Room No. 525A, बिधम Company Ltd. Employees Piramal Chambers, Parel, Provident Fund Mumbai-400012 5Th Floor Doaa, Uti Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaatu2391J Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri Jayant Bhatt/Shri FaheemFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna
Section 10Section 10(25)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

been dismissed by stating that the power to entertain of claim for deduction is vested in the assessing Authority, otherwise than by filing a revised return only, whereas the assessee firm has claimed deduction u/s.10(25) of the Act, on belated return and not on revised return ?" 3. Brief facts

Baldev Singh & Sons, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 43(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3103/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.3103/Del/2023, A.Y. 2021-22 Baldev Singh & Sons Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 14-A, Najafgarh Road, Income Tax, Circle-43(1), New Delhi Civic Centre, J.L. Nehru Road Pan: Aaahb4937M New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. G. S. Kohli, Ca Respondent By Sh. Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/05/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.10.2023 Of The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Addl. Cit(A)]. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Learned Cit(Appeal) Had Failed To Appreciate The Written Submission & The Documents Filed Before Him & Thus The Justice Had Not Been Given To The Humble Appellant.

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 80I

computer operator which is not acceptable as the appellant was at liberty to revise his return and submit form 10CCB along with the Revised return. 4.8. Besides, he could have filed revise TAR as per prescribed Form 3CD. 4.9. The appellant did not take any of the remedial steps

Lipi Jain Family Trust, Ashoknagar vs. Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward Gwalior, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 78/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 154Section 164(1)Section 250

order of CPC and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. Before us, the Ld. AR submit that the assessee has filed the revised return along with rectification application and, therefore, the tax has to be calculated on the normal rate of taxes. He further submit that inadvertently return

Lord Krishna Uchya Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Datia vs. ACIT, Datia

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

ITA 128/AGR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 10Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 147Section 148Section 250

that the assessee society has filed its return of income on 31.03.2017, declaring total income at INR NIL. Thereafter, the assessee has filed revised return of income on 01.06.2017, declaring total income at INR NIL. The AO observed that the assessee society was not registered u/s 12AA

Lord Krishn A Uchya Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Datia vs. ACIT, Datia

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

ITA 122/AGR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 10Section 10(23)(C)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 147Section 148Section 250

that the assessee society has filed its return of income on 31.03.2017, declaring total income at INR NIL. Thereafter, the assessee has filed revised return of income on 01.06.2017, declaring total ITA Nos.122 & 128/Agr/2022 income at INR NIL. The AO observed that the assessee society was not registered u/s 12AA

Little Scholars Academy, Amroha vs. ACIT Central Circle, Moradabad

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1966/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 115BSection 127Section 12ASection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

that the Appellant had filed its Return of Income in ITR-7 on 30.10.2019 declaring total income at Rs. 75,00,000/- and subsequently revised return of income was filed on 03.03.2020 declaring total income Rs. 75,00,000/-. In this case, a survey action u/s 133A

Sh. Sanjeev Garg, Panchkula vs. Pr. C.I.T., Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 365/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 365/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Sanjeev Garg, Vs The Pcit, House No. 77, Sector 4, Panchkula. Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Afopg5637A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Hybrid Hearing O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

issued by ITO, Ward-3, Sirsa. On this very return, second notice was issued by ITO, Ward-4, Panchkula on 29.09.2018 because the revised return was filed on 13.12.2018. By that time, all the notices alleged to have been issued upon the assessee u/s 143(2). In the above circumstances ... Considering these facts and non-production of complete material by the assessee before us, coupled with the fact that assessee himself has filed his revised return by mentioning address of Panchkula as his address, we do not find any merit A.Y.2017-18 7 in this ground of appeal. The assessee

Dattatray Hanmantrao Desai, Karad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 1240/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashok B NawalFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

given to 31090200000183 the assessee, are preceded by immediate credits in several tranches between 15.03.2018 to 27.03.2018 totalling to loan amount. He has filed revised return on income for A.Y.2018-19 on 05.01.2019 disclosing a meagre income of Rs.4,59,040/- does not commensurate with the quantum of loan advanced

Ajay Goel, Legal Heir of Late Manju Goel, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2450/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2450/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Ajay Goel (Legal Heir Of Late Manju Goel),…Appellant Flat 4H, 4Th Floor, Lake Plaza, 277, Jessore Road, Lake Town, Kolkata-700048 [Pan:Adcpg2207N] -Vs.- Assessing Officer,…………..……….…………...Respondent National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Susanta Saha, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: March 10, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 28, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessment year 2013-14 declaring total income of Rs.2,05,030/-. Thereafter the assessee 1 Ajay Goel (Legal Heir of Late Manju Goel) filed revised return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,05,030/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VIA for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Information