← 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

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The Dy.CIT., Anand Circle, Anand

In the result the appeal filed assessee for the Asst

ITA 1052/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

assessee e-filed its Return of Income for Asst. Year 2011-12 on 26.09.2011 declaring total Income of Rs.9,69,66,285/- and revised return was filed on 27.08.2012 declaring total income of Rs.2,36,19,752/-. The AO passed regular assessment order

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-3(1), Bhopal, Bhopal (M.P) vs. Uac Commodities Private Limited, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 447/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Paresh M. Joshi & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2017-18 The Dy.Commissioner Of Uac Commodities Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax-3(1) Vs Kontar Space Pvt.Ltd. 9Th Floor, Bhopal, Bhopal – 462 016 Wagle Industrial Estate (M.P.) Thane – 400 604 (Maharashtra) Pan: Aabcu 0306 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : -None- Revenue By : Shri Ram Klumar Yadav, Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2025 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Ram KLumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 on 07/11/2017 declaring total loss of Rs.(-)55,89,06,056/-. Thereafter, a revised return was filed on 10/10/2018 declaring NIL income. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO enquired

U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd., Lucknow vs. The DCIT, Range-VI, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 321/LKW/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Up State Agro Industrial V. The Deputy Corpn Ltd Commissioner Of Income 22-Vidhan Sabha Marg, Tax Range-Vi Lucknow-226001. 3Rd Floor, 27/2, Raja Ram Mohan Rai Marg, Lucknow, P.K. Complex, Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aaacu2653G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 29 04 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 04 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

instead of income shown in original return filed at Rs. 1,40,90,850/- as time limit for filing for Revised Return was expired, even this issue is covered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional Allahabad High Court. (2) The Ld. C.I.T.(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding addition

Ma Smart Developers Mangalore Pvt Ltd., Mangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 462/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

cases test checked, the buyers have confirmed the payments and wherever proper sources could not be proved, have paid tax and filed return / revised return. 5.6 Further, he submitted that a sworn statement u/s 132(4) was recorded from the Directors of the assessee who had admitted to the unaccounted

Ma Smart Developers Mangalore Pvt Ltd., Mangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

ITA 461/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

cases test checked, the buyers have confirmed the payments and wherever proper sources could not be proved, have paid tax and filed return / revised return. 5.6 Further, he submitted that a sworn statement u/s 132(4) was recorded from the Directors of the assessee who had admitted to the unaccounted

Ma Smart Developers Mangalore Pvt Ltd., Mangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 460/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

cases test checked, the buyers have confirmed the payments and wherever proper sources could not be proved, have paid tax and filed return / revised return. 5.6 Further, he submitted that a sworn statement u/s 132(4) was recorded from the Directors of the assessee who had admitted to the unaccounted

Ma Smart Developers Mangalore Pvt Ltd., Mangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 459/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

cases test checked, the buyers have confirmed the payments and wherever proper sources could not be proved, have paid tax and filed return / revised return. 5.6 Further, he submitted that a sworn statement u/s 132(4) was recorded from the Directors of the assessee who had admitted to the unaccounted

Ma Smart Developers Mangalore Pvt Ltd., Mangalore vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 458/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borker, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. E. Shridhar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 40

cases test checked, the buyers have confirmed the payments and wherever proper sources could not be proved, have paid tax and filed return / revised return. 5.6 Further, he submitted that a sworn statement u/s 132(4) was recorded from the Directors of the assessee who had admitted to the unaccounted

The Pavagada Souharda Credit Co-Operative Limtied, Kolor vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kolar

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

ITA 1960/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Chandigarh dated 19/09/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2010- 11 and raised the following grounds: “1. The processing of revised return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act") in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed ... section 154 of Income Tax Act 1961, hence the rectification request has been rejected. Assessee is Page 5 of 10 required to file revised return (instead of rectification application). 4. The appellant thereafter filed a revised return on 26.03.2012 U/s 139(5) of the Act, vide acknowledgment No. 362837590260312 which

Anatek Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 368/MUM/2025[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income Tax Act 1961. B. The CIT Appeals erred in confirming the penalty ignoring the fact that the revised returned income was accepted offering the additional income to tax without the Income Tax Officer finding out any cogent material. C. Your appellant prays that the penalty levied may please ... report in form 3CA and CD. The return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act, dated 27.07.2000. Subsequently, the assessee filed its revised return on 06.02.2003, declaring total income at Rs.80,81,210/, pursuant to a survey action conducted u/s.133 of the Act on 02.01.2003. The learned Assessing

Anatek Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 367/MUM/2025[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income Tax Act 1961. B. The CIT Appeals erred in confirming the penalty ignoring the fact that the revised returned income was accepted offering the additional income to tax without the Income Tax Officer finding out any cogent material. C. Your appellant prays that the penalty levied may please ... report in form 3CA and CD. The return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act, dated 27.07.2000. Subsequently, the assessee filed its revised return on 06.02.2003, declaring total income at Rs.80,81,210/, pursuant to a survey action conducted u/s.133 of the Act on 02.01.2003. The learned Assessing

Anatek Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 366/MUM/2025[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (SR. DR.)
Section 133Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Income Tax Act 1961. B. The CIT Appeals erred in confirming the penalty ignoring the fact that the revised returned income was accepted offering the additional income to tax without the Income Tax Officer finding out any cogent material. C. Your appellant prays that the penalty levied may please ... form 3CA and CD. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, dated 27.07.2000. Subsequently, the assessee filed its revised return on 06.02.2003, declaring total income at Rs. 80,81,210/, pursuant to a survey action conducted u/s. 133 of the Act on 02.01.2003. The learned

Milagro Ceremica Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1033/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Parth Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 156

consider the facts submitted by the assessee and passed an order without taking into consideration legitimate deduction of depreciation. Further, assessee filed a revised return during the assessment proceedings, just to give effect to depreciation amount of Rs. 17,62,663/- in DEP schedule of ITR as it had already

Hotel Galaxy, Thane vs. ACIT Central Circle 3, Thane

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

ITA 6859/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 133ASection 144Section 250Section 270A

filed his retraction statement on 11.03.2020 and had confirmed that the earlier statement recorded was under duress, pressure and force. Thus, no revised return of income declaring such additional income was filed. 6. The ld.DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities. However, the ld.AR has submitted that

DCIT(Exemp)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Education and Development Trust, Mumbai

ITA 5954/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar SyalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 11(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

supra), by a notice dated 6/2/2013, the Revenue sought to reopen the assessment in the year 2007-08. The Assessee filed a revised return of income and sought for reasons recorded in support of the notice dated 6.2.2013. The reasons were furnished only on 19.3.2015. The Assessee lodged objections

Sanjeev Behl, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward, 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5345/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K GopalFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar G Subramanyam, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 250Section 56Section 80

under consideration in the capacity of a non-resident Indian declaring a total income of INR 2,40,670. Thereafter, the assessee filed the revised return of income on 31/03/2018, declaring a total income of INR 5,11,880. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section

Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3 (1), Mumbai

ITA 4249/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR
Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 92C

ground that the said claim was made vide revised computation filed during the course of assessment proceedings and not made vide a revised return. 4 ITA No.4249 & 4159/Mum/2014 ICICI Bank Ltd. 8. Re: Claim of Issue and discount expenses - 58,86,271 [Para 14, Pages

DCIT Cir 3(1), Mumbai vs. Icici Bank Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4159/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR
Section 10(15)Section 14ASection 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 92C

ground that the said claim was made vide revised computation filed during the course of assessment proceedings and not made vide a revised return. 4 ITA No.4249 & 4159/Mum/2014 ICICI Bank Ltd. 8. Re: Claim of Issue and discount expenses - 58,86,271 [Para 14, Pages

Bitthal Das Parwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 1348/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

thereby claiming the brought forward loss of 3,18,558/-. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that original return was filed on 30.11.2011, revised return was filed on 05.11.2016 and return in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act was filed on 20.02.2017. Thus, before issue of notice ... establish the charge of penalty to the assessee and that income being accepted as it is that has been offered in the revised return and the return in response to notice u/s. 153A of the Act. Therefore, there is no case of levy of penalty in this case

M/S. Jamshedpur Transport Co.Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2618/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2618/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Jamshedpur Transport Co. Ltd.……………………………..….……….Appellant Eastern Building, 2Nd Floor, Suit No.201, Kolkata -1. [Pan: Aaccj1431D] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Lovish Shelly, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 29, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 16.12.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Addl/Jcit-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.3,56,95,240/-. However, In The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Income Of The Assessee Assessed At Rs.3,57,50,240/- Resulting In An Addition Of Rs.55,000/- To The Declared Income. While Framing The Assessment Order, No Specific Issue Was Discussed By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Addition Of Rs.55,000/- Added To The Total Income Of The Assessee. In Fact, The Assessment Order Is Silent On Disallowance Relating To Rs.55,000/- As Made By The Assessing Officer. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Stated By A Letter Dated 22.12.2019 That

Section 143(3)Section 250

Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) and stated that no new claim cannot be entertained by Assessing Officer without a revised return. However, the ld. AR objected to such submission made by the ld. DR stating that appellate authority can entertain such claim. 6. We, after