“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

Zensar Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment

ITA 4307/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

Section 10ASection 234CSection 32

revised the book profit at Rs.94,14,21,847 u/s.115JB of the Act. 3.1 The Ld.AO observed that, in the revised return assessee reduced the claim u/s.10A due to nonreceipt of export receipts within 12 months. Thus therewas increase in the disallowance of Rs.91,701/-, while computing the book profit ... whole before tax 8,623.46 3.3 It was noted that, the assessee worked on gross total income of Rs.16,38,89,226/- in the revised return after claiming deduction of Rs.17,50,000/- u/s.80G. Thus declared total income of Rs.16,21,39,226/-. 4. The Ld.AO further noted that, there

Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2224/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri N.K. Billaiya, Am M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Dcit, (Corporate Finance Division) Central Circle 1(4), A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Vs. Room No. 902, S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai - 400030 Mumbai-400020 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacg 4464B Dcit, M/S Grasim Industries Ltd. Central Circle 1(4), (Corporate Finance Division) Room No. 902, A-2, Aditya Birla Centre, Old Cgo Building, Vs. S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai - 400030 Appellant By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate, Shri Madhur Agarwal & Respondent By : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit(Dr) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT(DR)

Section 37(1)Section 40Section 80I

assessment year under dispute, assessee had filed its return of income on 30.10.2007, declaring income of Rs.1920,40,47,165/-. Subsequently, assessee filed its revised return of income on 17.03.2009, declaring income of Rs.1923,71,32,402/-. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee

Akums Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Limited, New Delhi vs. NFAC, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5111/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 35

deduction. The appellant has submitted that since the Form 3CL was issued on 13.09.2021, well after the due date for filing a revised return, the Company could not have filed a revised return within the permissible timeframe and hence provided the details and filed revised computation voluntarily during the assessment ... accepted. 6.4 It is apparent from above discussion that the rationale advanced by the AO for imposing penalty that the assessee has not filed revised return suo moto and the revised computation was filed only after being specifically asked about deduction claimed u/s 35(2AB), is justified. Further, the observation

ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi vs. Spring Infradev Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 611/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year:2016-17]

Section 143(3)Section 45Section 47

held that the assessee can make a claim for deduction or otherwise, which has not been claimed in the return, only by filing a revised return within the time allowed. Moreover, section 240(b) of IT Act, 1961 also expresses similar intent wherein it stipulates that refund ... held that the assessee can make a claim for deduction or otherwise, which has not been claimed in the return, only by filing a revised return within the time allowed. The AO further stated that since the assessee has not filed a revised return for claiming the capital gains

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central Ludhiana vs. M/S. Garg Acrylics Ltd

ITA/178/2023HC Delhi22 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

For Appellant: Mr.Debesh Panda, SSCFor Respondent: Mr.Rohit Jain, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 260ASection 68

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) or an updated return under sub- section (8A) of that section, or Digitally Signed By:RAM KUMAR

M/S. Simero Vitrified P. Ltd., Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Rajkot

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

ITA 276/RJT/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Vitrified Tiles. The Return Of Income Has Been E-Filed By The Assessee, On 10/09/2016 For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17, Reporting Loss Of Rs. 5,68,00,829/-, Which Was Later Revised On 09/03/2018, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/-, Claiming Investment Allowance U/S 32Ac Of The Income Tax Act. The Case Has Been Selected For Complete Scrutiny (Cass) Specifically To Examine The Followings: 1) Whether Outward Foreign Remittance Is From Disclosed Sources & Appropriate Withholding & Reporting Obligation Have Been Complied With; 2) Whether Investment & Income Relating To Properties Are Duly Disclosed; 3) Whether Receipt Of Foreign Remittance Has Been Correctly Offered For Tax And, 4) Whether Sundry Creditors Are Genuine. 4. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 Was Passed By Dcit, Morbi Circle, Morbi, Being The Assessing Officer (Ao), On 21/12/2018, Allowing The Loss Claimed Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/- To Be Carry Forward To Subsequent Years. 2

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 68

case was selected through 'CASS' for Scrutiny and assessment u/s 143(3) was completed on 21.12.2018 on revised returned income after providing consideration to the provisions of section 115JB of IT Act, 1961. 2. Thereafter, Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Rajkot found some discrepancies in passed assessment

ACIT Circle 3, Lucknow vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 141/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Before Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyshri Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 112 To 114/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2015-16 To 2017-18 Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Vs. Dcit Bank Ltd P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan P.K. Complex, Raja Ram Mohan 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226001. Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan:Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) A.Y.2016-17 Acit Circle-3 Vs. Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh 57 Ram Tirath Marg Pratyaksh Ltd Kar Bhawan, Lucknow Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, 555Ga/86, Sardari Khera, Alambagh, Lucknow-226006 226006 Pan: Aaaar1269D (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.A. Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Addl. Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: Date Of Pronouncement: 22.05.2025 O R D E R Per Bench.: These Four Appeals Have Been Have Been Filed For The Assessment Years 2015 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016- 17 & 2017-18 By The Assessee & Revenue Ssessee & Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024. While The Delhi Dated 02.02.2024, 05.02.2024 & 05.02.2024 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015 Assessee Is In Appeal In Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, The Revenue 18, The Revenue

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 36(1)(v)

addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- being "Provision for Income Tax for F. Y.-2014 15"solely on the basis of Non furnishing of Revised Return, without appreciating that this provision has not been claimed as Deduction in the Income Tax Return in Schedule- Part-A - P& L and Schedule ... C.I.T. (A), NFAC w. r. t. Grounds of Appeal No. 2 and3 failed to appreciate that due to expiry of timing for filing of Revised Return, the corrected computation chart was filed before Ld. A. O. Further, the CVT (A) has power to decide the same as the case

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT, Lucknow

ITA 114/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

addition of Rs.30,00,000/- being "Provision for Income Tax for F. Y.-2014 15"solely on the basis of Non furnishing of Revised Return, without appreciating that this provision has not been claimed as Deduction in the Income Tax Return in Schedule- Part-A - P& L and Schedule ... C.I.T. (A), NFAC w. r. t. Grounds of Appeal No. 2 and3 failed to appreciate that due to expiry of timing for filing of Revised Return, the corrected computation chart was filed before Ld. A. O. Further, the CVT (A) has power to decide the same as the case

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy. CIT, Lucknow

ITA 113/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT-

Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

addition of Rs.30,00,000/- being "Provision for Income Tax for F. Y.-2014 15"solely on the basis of Non furnishing of Revised Return, without appreciating that this provision has not been claimed as Deduction in the Income Tax Return in Schedule- Part-A - P& L and Schedule ... C.I.T. (A), NFAC w. r. t. Grounds of Appeal No. 2 and3 failed to appreciate that due to expiry of timing for filing of Revised Return, the corrected computation chart was filed before Ld. A. O. Further, the CVT (A) has power to decide the same as the case

Rajdhani Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT, Lucknow

ITA 112/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 36(1)(v)Section 43B

addition of Rs.30,00,000/- being "Provision for Income Tax for F. Y.-2014 15"solely on the basis of Non furnishing of Revised Return, without appreciating that this provision has not been claimed as Deduction in the Income Tax Return in Schedule- Part-A - P& L and Schedule ... C.I.T. (A), NFAC w. r. t. Grounds of Appeal No. 2 and3 failed to appreciate that due to expiry of timing for filing of Revised Return, the corrected computation chart was filed before Ld. A. O. Further, the CVT (A) has power to decide the same as the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad vs. M/S Prestige Avenues Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 764/HYD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

subject year i.e. A.Y 2007-08 on 6/3/2008 declaring an income of Rs. 2,93,48,652/-. Subsequently, the assessee company filed a revised return of income on 15/11/2008 declaring an income of Rs. 6,07,69,080/-. The assessee company along with its revised return of income had enclosed ... crores (supra) that was admitted in the statement recorded U/s. 132(4) of the Act, dated 30/11/2006, which though was disclosed in its revised return of income filed on 15/12/2008, thus, in the backdrop of his deliberations recorded in the assessment order made an addition of Rs. 3.33 Crores

M/S. Prestige Avenues Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-VII, Hyderabad

ITA 742/HYD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

Coal Employees Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 302/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(f)

further held that the assessee has not correct the mistake on his part by filing revised return. Keeping in view the order passed as well as considering the submission of the assessee, we are remitting the appeal of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the facts

Satyam Smelters Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC - 3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2493/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 145ASection 153ASection 154

under normal provision and Rs. 37,69,97,815/- under book profit u/s 115JB of the Act Subsequently the assessee has filed a revised return u/s 139(5) on 26.11.2020 declaring total income of Rs. 38,03,23,967/- under normal provision and Rs. 37,69,97,815/- under book

ACIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. West Bengal Electronics Industry Development Corporation Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1982/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2004-05 Acit, Circle-2(2), Kolkata. West Bengal Electronics Industry Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Webel Bhavan, Block-Ep & Jp, Salt Lake City, Sector-V, Kolkata- 700091. (Pan: Aaacw2411Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel & Shri PFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251

processed and the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) on 18.12.2006. it was the submission that in the meantime the assessee had filed a revised return on 31.03.2006. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not take cognizance of the revised return filed by the assessee. On appeal before ... order came to be passed on 12.12.2008 wherein the Ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to accept the revised return filed and he set aside the issues to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order based on such revised return. Against the said order

Saffron Art Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -8(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 526/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Sakhardande, Sr. DR

Section 250

heard the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee for the year under consideration filed a revised return of income on 09.01.2019 claiming TDS refund to the tune of Rs. 52,73,610/-. The AO while completing the assessment determined the refund ... assessee that Shri Hemnat Surana filed the TDS return for AY 2016-17 only on 27.10.2018 by which the time limit for filing the revised return for AY 2016-17 has already expired. Therefore, the assessee claimed the credit for TDS in AY 2017-18. The relevant extract of Form

Shantilal Hirji Savla, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos 357 to 363/Mum/2025 are allowed

ITA 363/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORESHRI NARENDA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinodkumar Bindal (virtually appeared) a/w Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 56Section 69

notice issued under section 153A, the assessee filed return of income on 29/12/2018 declaring total income at Rs.8,08,640/-. The assessee filed a revised return on 31/12/22018, declaring the same total income. Finally, the notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) issued and the assessment was framed considering

Shantilal Hirji Savla, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos 357 to 363/Mum/2025 are allowed

ITA 362/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: BEFORESHRI NARENDA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinodkumar Bindal (virtually appeared) a/w Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 56Section 69

Shantilal Hirji Savla, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos 357 to 363/Mum/2025 are allowed

ITA 361/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: BEFORESHRI NARENDA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinodkumar Bindal (virtually appeared) a/w Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 56Section 69

Shantilal Hirji Savla, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee bearing ITA Nos 357 to 363/Mum/2025 are allowed

ITA 360/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinodkumar Bindal (virtually appeared) a/w Shri Satish KumarFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule - CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 250Section 56Section 69