“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

DCIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Nse Clearing Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1758/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2016-17 Nse Clearing Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Tax, Circle – 7(1)(1), Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai. (Respondent) Mumbai 400 051. Pan : Aaacn2642L (Appellant) : A.Y : 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Nse Clearing Limited Tax, Circle – 7(1)(1), Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Mumbai. (Appellant) Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. (Respondent) Pan : Aaacn2642L

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel &For Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 14A

assessee u/s 14A of the Act on the basis of revised workings, without appreciating that the assessee has made revised claim without filing revised return of income as mandated by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT (157 Taxman ... additions made u/s 14A are deleted.” 6. It is the contention of the revenue that the assessee has made revised claim without filing revised return of income as stated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd vs. CIT (157 Taxman

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Welspun Global Brands Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2184/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: 2.1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the LdFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

filed the return of income for AY 2012-13 on 30.11.2012 declaring a total income of Rs.12,75,63,528/-. The assessee filed the revised return on 23.07.2013 declaring a loss of Rs.65,61,19,756 on account of scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Hon'ble High Court

M/S. Nandi Engineering Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1942/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri H. Siva Prasaad Reddy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Netrapal M.S., D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 68

assessment on a total Assessed income of Rs.3,20,00,152/- as against the total loss of(-)Rs.1,57,67,820/- declared in the revised return of income by making the following additions/ disallowances: St. Particulars Amount No. (in Rs.) (i) Cash deposits in bank account treated

Devi Dutt Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assessment Unit, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1375/JPR/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Vikash Rajvanshi, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 10Section 250

facts of the case are that the assessee individual filed his return of income at Rs. 20,94,750/- on 17.12.2020 and thereafter a revised return also on 05.05.2021 declaring total income at Rs. 11,81,550/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS ... Salary income shown under TDS schedule of ITR is higher than the salary income shown under Part-B; 2. Reduction of income in revised return and claim of refund and 3. Salary income shown as per the ITR is less than the salary income as per Form No. 26AS

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr vs. Rohit Karan Jain

ITA/5/2023HC Gauhati12 Mar 2025

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153A

LTCG ores. vi) Many such individuals have voluntarily without any enquiry by any authority have voluntarily withdrawn their claim and filed Page No.# 7/22 revised return. vii) As per the Investigation Report of the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata statements of brokers, operators, director of paper companies that

Kailaswasi Narayan Alias Bapu Patil Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 620/PUN/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: CA Supriya PowarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 3Section 68

MUMBAI)-O] It has been held that even though the assessee did not revise its claim under sections80HH and 80-1, in the revised return, the IT authorities were obliged to consider the revised figures placed before them during assessment. Thus, the reason quoted by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals

Mumbai Apmc, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Exem, Circle 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5185/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Harani (Hybrid)For Respondent: 25.02.2025

Section 10Section 11Section 11(7)Section 12A

alternate plea of the assessee to allow exemption under section 11 for the reason that the same can be claimed only through filing a revised return of income. The assessee is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the tribunal. 3. The ld.AR submitted that the assessee ... that assessee has filed its return of income u/s.131 on 30/10/2018 for the A.Y.2018-19 claiming exemption u/s.10(26AAB) however, it has also filed revised return on 26/12/2018 alongwith Form 10B claiming exemption u/s.11. The ld. AO without considering that assessee is an Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) created under

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 3(4) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. The Shipping Corporation of India Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1971/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ms. Samiksha SaveFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi - Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 28Section 43C

reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC), rejected the plea of the assessee on the basis that the assessee has not filed a revised return claiming deduction of interest income. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused ... entertain a fresh claim made by the assessee, even if such a claim was not made in return of income or by way of revised return of income. Therefore, respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we find no merits in the findings of the learned CIT(A) in rejecting the alternative

The Shipping Corporation of India, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1751/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi a/w Ms. Samiksha SaveFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi - Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 28Section 43C

Rolta India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2144/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Gupta, AR

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 35

allow the claim of the assessee stating that the additional claim can be made only by filing revised return of income and the 8 ITA No.2144/Mum/2023 - Rolta India Ltd. CIT(A) placed reliance in this regard on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Goetz

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sharp Business Systems India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2936/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2017-18 Mukul Monga, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, H. No. 100, Sector-30, Ward 2(5), Gurgaon Gurgaon Haryana Pan No. Ajqpm2226F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri SomailFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

this regard, it is held that the appellant 4 cannot file any alternate or substantial claim of exemption or deduction other than filing the revised return of income. The reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze (India ... does not in any way relate to the power of the assessing officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. In the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the civil appeal. However, we make it clear that the issue in this case is limited

Veena Khindri, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

ITA 443/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

income tax act 1961. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the form 10 IE and revised return filed on 25.03.2022 without considering the fact that it was filed before the processing of original return i.e on 26.05.2022. 7. That the appellant craves leave

Rahul Khindri, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (1), Amritsar

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 37/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 37/Asr/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Rahul Khindri, बनाम A.O., Cpc, 2157, Bazar Sirki Banda, Banglore Katra Dullo, Amritsar Indra Nagar, 143001 स्थधयी लेखध सं./Pan No: Apfpk9150F अपीलधथी/Appellant प्रत्यथी/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) निर्धाररती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue By : Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2024 उदघोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.07.2023 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- 1. That The Ld. C1T(A) Vide Order U/S 250(6) Dated 31.07.2023 Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Not Providing The Benefit Of Lower Tax As Per Section 115Bac Due To The Fact That Form 10 Ie Was Not Filed Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) I.E. 31.12.2021. 37-Asr-2024 Rahul Khindri, Amritsar 2

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Neelam Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

income and various Forms has been extended multiple times due to technical glitch in the new portal. Later on, the Assessee filed a revised return of income on 25.03.2022 in which he had opted for taxation as per the provisions of section 115BAC and also filed Form ... Assessee in his revised return of income had claimed a refund of Rs. 15860/-. However, the claim of refund in return filed on 25.03.2022 was rejected by the CPC, Bengaluru vide order passed u/s 143(1) dated 30.07.2022. The refund was rejected merely due to the fact that the Assessee

Shri Saraswati Kelavani Mandal, Kathlal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nadiad

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

ITA 1912/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1912/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Shri Saraswati Kelavani Mandal, The Income Tax Officer, Patel Jivabhai Dhulabhai, बनामVs Ward-1, . Katulal, Nadiad. Kheda-387630. Pan: Aajts0827Q ( ""यथ" /Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant Assessee By : Shri Girish B. Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, Cit.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.09.2024 Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Mumbai, (Hereinafter Referred As Jcit(A)) Relevant To The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Trust Running Educational Institutions. The Return Of Income For A.Y 2021-22 Was Filed On 09.02.2022, Declaring Total Income At Rs. Nil. In The Return Of Income, The Assessee Had Claimed Exemption Of Rs.2,42,88,361/- U/S.10(23C) Of The Act. The Return Of Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc On 09.12.2022 U/S.143(1) Of Asst. Year 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Girish B. Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR

Section 10Section 143(1)

matter was referred to the tax consultant, who first tried to rectify the mistake in the original return and also tried to file a revised return. However, as the issue could not be sorted out, it was finally decided to file the appeal and in the process there was delay

Satyam Computer Services Limited, Hyderabad vs. Addl. CIT, Central Range - 3, Hyderabad

ITA 25/HYD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 119

Assessment Year 2003- 04 to Assessment Year 2008-09 have been duly adjusted as prior period adjustments; iv. to permit the petitioner to file revised returns for the Assessment Year 2007-08 and Assessment Year 2008-09 based on the audited financial statements for the said years read together with ... revised financial statements of the petitioner Company for the year ending 31st March, 2009. The petitioner Company is further directed to file the revised return for the Assessment Year 2003-04 to 2008-09 based on the audited financial statements for the said years read with the audited financial statement