“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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Siemens, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3109/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhaildeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (It)-4(2)(1), Scindia House, Balard Pier, N.M. Road, Mumbai – 400038 ……………. Appellant Maharashtra V/S M/S. Siemens Aktiengensellschaft, C/O, Bsr & Co. Lodha Excelus, 1St Floor, Apollo Mills Compound, M.N. Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, ……………. Respondent Mumbai - 400038, Maharashtra Pan – Aabcs8516K

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271GSection 92CSection 92D

consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 30.09.2008, declaring a total income of Rs.84,78,66,807/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed its revised return of income on 31.03.2010, declaring a total income of Rs.109,33,71,431/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny

Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi L/H Manish Mahesh Modi, Bharuch vs. ACIT Circle-1, Bharuch

In the result, ground No. VII of appeal raised by the assessee is also allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 999/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Physical Hearing) Late Mahesh Ramanlal Modi, A.C.I.T., Through L-H Manish Mahesh Modi, Circle-1, Vs. Near Shakuntal Apartment, Dahej Bharuch. Bypass Road At Nandelav, Bharuch-392001 (Gujarat) Pan No. Adfpm 4030 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 23(5)Section 24Section 254(1)Section 40Section 69A

without giving any independent finding. We find that it is settled position in law that Assessing Officer cannot accept revised claim in absence of revised return of income, however, such restriction is not applicable on the power of appellate authorities as has been held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High

Vipul Lallubhai Kukadiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(4), Surat

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

ITA 1051/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1051/Srt/2024 (Ay 2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Vipul Lallubhai Kukadiya Income Tax Officer, Ward- 126, Gitanagar Society-2, 2(3)(4), Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम Near Sitaram Chawk, Punagam, Majura Gate, Vs Surat-394 101 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Awppk 7950 P] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 69A

revised computation of income during the first appellate stage. It is settled land that Assessing Officer cannot be accept revised claim in absence of revised return of income, however, such restriction is not applicable on the power of appellate authorities 7 Vipul L Kukadiya as has been held

Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 1160/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Pune03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Smt. Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40

original return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 was filed by you on 30/11/2017 declaring total income of Rs.364,37,67,020/- and the revised return was filed on 08/03/2019 declaring total income of Rs.4,19,43,91,420/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS (complete scrutiny ... been verified by the FAO. 4.5 In addition to the claim of deduction under section 10AA made by the assessee in the revised return of income at Rs 263,46,37,168/-, the FAO has allowed further deduction under the said section at Rs. 1,23,15,523/- in respect

M/S. Peak Xv Partners Advisors Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2046/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 135Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 37Section 80G

that the assessee M/s. Peak XV Partners Advisors Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Sequoia Capital India Advisors Pvt. Ltd.) had filed its revised return declaring a gross total income of Rs.31,35,11,822/-. Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly notices

M/S. Peak Xv Partners Advisors Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 2045/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Sri Kanchan Kaushal, A.R

Section 135Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 37Section 80G

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4611/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43B

aside and confirm the order of the AO.” 29. For the Assessment Year 2022-2023, Assessee filed its return of income on revised return of income on 30/12/2022. The case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny and notice, dated 02/06/2023, under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4610/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43B

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4609/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43B

Leader Electric Co., Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 377/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.376 & 377/Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15& 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Leader Electric Co. The Pcit – 1, Vs. Dindayal Industries Estates, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aji Vasahat, Opp. Gamara Hostel, Road, Rajkot - 360003 Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfl6072C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriD. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)

Section 147Section 2Section 263

Income Tax Act for the said assessment Year. (i) Notice issued under section 148 on 31.03.2021 vide reference ID: 100033439508 and reply was filed revised return on 24.05.2021. (ii) Leader Electric Co. v. PCIT ITA No.367 & 377 /Rjt/2024 (AY 2014-16) Notice u/s. 142(1) in 16.03.2022 vide reference

Leader Electric Co., Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

ITA 376/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: ShriD. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)

Section 147Section 2Section 263

Income Tax Act for the said assessment Year. (i) Notice issued under section 148 on 31.03.2021 vide reference ID: 100033439508 and reply was filed revised return on 24.05.2021. (ii) Notice u/s. 142(1) in 16.03.2022 vide reference ID: 100045995456 and replied submitted with evidences on 17.03.2022. (iii) Notice

Samaresh Paul, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward 25(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2574/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2574/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Samaresh Paul……...…... .……………………………………..….……….Appellant 16C, Bose Pukur Road, Kolkata – 700042. [Pan: Aeupp8135R] Vs. Ito, Ward-25(1), Kolkata...……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Amit Agarwa & T. Wasi, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 28, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 29.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [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 His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2016-17 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,42,850/-. The Assessee Thereafter Filed His Revised Return Of Income U/S 139(5) Of The Act By Declaring The Same Total Income. However, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Has Made Property Transaction Of Rs.98,51,000/- During The F.Y 2015-16 Relevant To A.Y 2016-17 Which Has Been Escaped Within The Meaning Of Section 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued Followed By Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act. However, The Assessee Did Not Turn Up In Response To The Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Made

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

filed his return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 by declaring total income of Rs.7,42,850/-. The assessee thereafter filed his revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act by declaring the same total income. However, it was noticed that the assessee has made property

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jsr Infra Developers Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2232/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153CSection 801ASection 80I

Apex Court has ore Vs M/s Wipro Limited wherein the Apex Court has held that the "Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by held that the "Revenue is right in submitting that the revised return filed by held that the "Revenue is right in submitting that ... revised return filed by the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under the assessee under section 139(5) can only substitute its original return under Section 139(1) and cannot transform

Arthi Baliga, Chennai vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1559/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1559/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthi Baliga, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No. 15, Flat No. 3-C, Coral Woods Income Tax, Chennai-4, Apartment, Sri Ram Nagar, South Chennai. Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Bkjpb5416P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai-4, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

assessment order. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 148 of the Act and in response to the notice, the assessee filed revised return of income on 18.05.2021 admitting income of ₹.9,49,240/- and claimed refund of ₹.4,680/-. After considering the response filed

National Stock Exchange of India Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1091/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate and Shri Harsh KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR and Ms Monika H. Pande, Sr.AR

Section 1Section 14A

income duly signed and verified which appears to be a mere change of opinion and such a claim not being embedded in a revised return of income filed for correcting any omissions and commissions, loses its legal sanctity. 27. Before us, ld. Counsel asserted that it was an inadvertent mistake

Digvijay Finlease Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1139/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey&Shri Sanjay Awasthi]

Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 154

passed by CIT Kolkata dated 14-11-2024 submits that petitioner’s petition for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) in filing the revised return of income for year under consideration 3 I.T.A. No. 1139/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Digvijay Finlease Limited has been codoned. The Ld. Counsel further ... before the due date. It is pertinent to mention here that PCIT vide order dated14-11-2024 has condoned the delay in filing revised return of income. In this context we have gone through the order of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court which deals thus: “Denial of benefit

Maharashtra Council of Homoeopathy, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 96/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, AR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay before the Principal CIT(E) which is pending for disposal. The assessee also filed the revised return on 31.07.2020 along with Form-10/10B and the revised return is also processed under section 143(1) on 09.11.2020. In the intimation passed processing ... revised return also the exemption under section 11 was denied to the assessee. The assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of exemption under section 11 of the Act for the reason that the petition for condoning the delay is pending before

Maharashtra Council of Homoeopathy, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 95/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Shah, AR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

Matrix Publicities and Media India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 16(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6769/MUM/2024[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025

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

For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 244A

this fact. We have also perused the updated computation of income of the assessee (page 83 of paper book) and the copy of the revised return for AY 2019-20 (page 84 to 144 of paper book). On the combined perusal of all the above stated facts along with

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2), Hyderbad vs. Sew Infrastucture Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1723/HYD/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA MV Prasad AndFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

supra), wherein it has been laid down that the AO cannot entertain a claim for deduction otherwise than by filing a revised return. Since the assessee neither made any such claim in the original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act, nor in any regular assessment proceedings ... filing any revised return and, therefore, return in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act is not a substitution of a revised return for making claim of such benefits. Further, the Department also took support from the provisions of Section 80A(5) and Section 80AC