“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

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. B.Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 55/HYD/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

Thereafter, the case was reopened after obtaining approval from the CIT (Central). In response, the assessee filed a reply/objection and a revised return on 24.03.2009. However, it was submitted that the assessee made an additional statement on 07.01.2009, as noted in paragraph 3.2 of the assessment order, which

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1729/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR

Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

under Computer Assisted Scrutiny Selection (CASS). The statutory notices along with questionnaires were duly issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee filed the revised return of income on 05.09.2018, after taking the effect of the merger with M/s Nextgen Commosales Private limited as per NCLT order, declaring total income

Deputy Commissoenr of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1728/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR

Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

Vst Associates, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(2), Benglauru

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

ITA 2507/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Ganesh S., A.RFor Respondent: counsel for department

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 44A

merit, it is necessary to take a note about the history of the case, which goes as follows: 5.1 The assessee filed the revised return of income in ITR-4 dated 31.5.2018 declaring income on presumptive basis u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Sampurna Family Trust, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6676/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sampurna Family Trust, Ito Ward 29(1), Ashirwad Building, 23, Kalidas Aayakar Bhavan, Dakshin, Vs. Patitundi Lane, 2 Gariahat Road, (South), Kolkata-700 026. Kolkata-700031. Pan No. Aalts 3763 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Manish Sareen, CIT-DR (onFor Respondent: Ms. Sutana Roy Choudhary

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 143(1)

revised due to the portal being closed and the time to file revised due to the portal being closed and the time to file revised return expired. return expired. VII. For that Ld. CITA) was not justified in holding For that Ld. CITA) was not justified in holding For that ... CITA) was not justified in holding that the appellant didn't file revised return under Section 139(5) of the appellant didn't file revised return under Section 139(5) of the appellant didn't file revised return under Section 139(5) of the said Act to claim exemption correctly

Hiranand Family Trust, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6335/MUM/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhrihiranand Family Trust V/S. Ito Ward 17(3)(1), Mumbai 6Th Floor, Mistry Bhavan, बनाम Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Dinshaw Vaccha Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra Churchgate, Mumbai- East, Mumbai-400051 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Mumh10606B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 139(9)Section 250Section 270ASection 44A

return on the website. In this return, the income was shown at nil and the refund of Rs. 34,03,030/- was claimed. The revised return got processed on 02.10.2019 and the case was also selected for scrutiny on the ground that the assessee had wrongly shown nil income. During ... were initiated. (iii) During the penalty proceedings, the assessee reiterated its contention that there was no malafide intent in claiming the refund in the revised return as it got uploaded inadvertently. However, the explanation was not accepted by the Ld. AO and penalty of Rs. 15,86,952/- was imposed

M/S Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2369/DEL/2016[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2025AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1977/धिल्ली/2013(नि.व. 2009-10) Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd., Sahara India Sadan, 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata 700071 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aadcs-6118-F बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-6, R. No. 334, E-2, Ara, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Centre Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi आअसं.4728, 2795, 4729, 4730 और 4731/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2010-11 से 2014-15)

Section 142

maintained. The assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 declaring loss of Rs.205,53,32,506/-. The assessee filed revised return of income on 07.03.2010 declaring revised loss of Rs.391,45,89,643/-. Owing to complexity of the accounts, the Assessing Officer (AO) directed for Special

Othukkungal Service Co-Operative Bank Limited No.F1039, Malappuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Malappuram

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

ITA 858/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2018-19 Othukkungal Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Xi/38, Service Bank Building, Kuzhipuram Road, Othukungal, Malappuram 676528 [Pan: Aaaao1158J] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1 .......... Respondent Tharff Bazar, Opp. Town Hall, Tirur 676101

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 119(2)Section 139(1)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 80P

original return of income. In response to the show cause notice it was stated that the defects were already rectified by filing the revised return of income on 31.03.2019. However, the CPC processed the return of income u/s. 143(1) vide intimation dated 20.06.2019 disallowing the claim for deduction ... return of income was filed on 28.02.2019 as extended by the CBDT vide notification (supra). When the original return was in time, the revised return of income was filed before the notification of the defect by the CPC. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the original return of income

Pjl Clothing India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8 2 1, Mumbai

In the result,the appeal of the In the result,the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5916/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarpjl Clothing India Pvt. V/S. Nfac/Dcit 8 2 1 Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. बनाम 505, 506 Dalamal Road, Churchgate, Chambers, New Marine Mumbai-400020 Lines, Vitthaldasthackersey Marg, Churchgate, Maharashtra-400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacp2782R .. Appellant/अपीलाथ" Respondent/""तवाद"

For Appellant: Mr. Satish ModiFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani,Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

Clothing India Pvt Ltd. PJL Clothing India Pvt Ltd. the donation in the revise return c the donation in the revise return could not be accepted. If it was so, asseesee . If it was so, asseesee would have option of filing a revise return before that and would have paid ... would have option of filing a revise return before that and would have paid due would have option of filing a revise return before that and would have paid due tax before initiating the proceedings u/s 147. tax before initiating the proceedings u/s 147. It was awaiting till the notice

Mitesh Vijay Gulati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Int. Tax Ward-2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4227/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 6(1)Section 6(1)(c)

declared his total income of Rs.8,37,250/- by filing his original return of income on 30.07.2016, which was subsequently revised by filing revised return on 16.07.2017 declaring total income at Rs.10,87,740/- and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. 2.1 Subsequently, the case ... Rs.2,77,787/- and added the same in the total taxable income of Rs.10,87,740/- as declared by the Assessee by filing revised return of income on 16.07.2017, mainly by observing as concluding as under: "9. Findings given by the undersigned considering the facts involved in the case

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur vs. Ms Mayura Saria Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur

ITA 430/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 430/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

held that where assessee challenged reopening notice on ground that there was absence of reasons with material particulars for proposed reassessment, since assessee filed revised return in compliance of terms of reopening notice, it would be construed that assessee participated in reassessment proceedings and surrendered to jurisdiction

Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Limited, Lucknow vs. Dy. CIT Range-6, Lucknow

In the result, these three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 181/LKW/2022[F.Y- 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. & ShriFor Respondent: Smt Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR)

Section 199

C.1.T. (A) fails to appreciate that the Revised Sheet has been filed before Ld. A. O. for which it is not necessary that Revised Return should be filed. Further Ld. C.1.T. (A) has power to consider the same.” 1.1 The original grounds of appeal were subsequently revised by the assessee ... C.1.T. (A) fails to appreciate that the Revised Sheet has been filed before Ld. A. O. for which it is not necessary that Revised Return should be filed. Further Ld. C.1.T. (A) has power to consider the same.” 1.2 For the sake of convenience, these three appeals are hereby disposed

Babulal Roshanlal Patni, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Cencir 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 196/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

original return of income on 31.03.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,72,820/-. In response to the notice u/sec.148, the assessee has filed her revised return of income on 17.07.2021 admitting total income of Rs.4,55,500/-. The Assessing Officer after following the due procedure, completed the assessment u/sec.147 r.w.s.143

Patni Housing Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Cencir 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 194/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Taradevi Babulal Patni, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 193/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -2, Nagpur vs. Shri Rohan Jagdale, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 85/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 68

also has receipts from clearing, forwarding etc. He filed return of income on 29.11.2014 declaring income of Rs.1,35,51,442/- and also filed revised return income by adding a sum of Rs.1,02,98,288/- on 26.09.2016 and thus, the total income determined by the assessee was at Rs.2 ... Assessing Officer. He drew the attention of the Bench that the assessee has declared the additional sum of Rs.1,02,98,288/- in the revised return only after issuance of show cause notice dated 19.08.2016. The interest bearing amount of Rs.44,59,498/- paid by the assessee to M/s. Airan

Jagran Prakashan Ltd, 2014-15 vs. JCIT, Special Range, Kanpur

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

ITA 171/LKW/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 115JSection 253(3)

income for assessment year 2013-14 on 29/11/2013 declaring nil income. The assessee filed revised income on 18/03/2015 declaring nil income. The assessee further revised return on 08/05/2014 declaring nil income. The assessment was completed and the income was assessed at Rs.2,51,81,37,310/- u/s 115JB

Jagran Prakashan Ltd, Kanpur vs. JCIT, Special Range, Kanpur

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

ITA 170/LKW/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 115JSection 253(3)

DCIT., Circle 8(1), Hyderabad vs. East India Petroleum Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1087/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narsimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1087/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. East India Petroleum Income Tax Limited Circle-8(1)(Incharge) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaace4494K] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 06/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19.08.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, Engaged In The Business Of Providing Terminalling Services To Oil Marketing Companies For Storage Of Bulk Liquid Products Including Fuels Like High Speed Diesel, Motor Spirit, Petroleum

For Appellant: Shri H.Srinivasulu, ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 32

books of accounts of the assessee company. Subsequently, to give effect to the amalgamation of M/s RPPPL and the assessee company, a revised return has been filed on 30.03.2019, declaring total income of Rs.Nil and refund tax claim of Rs.9,23,40,520/-. 3. The case was selected for scrutiny ... assessee to explain as to why the interest expenditure shall not be disallowed. 4. In response, the assessee submitted that the company has filed revised return of income, incorporating the order passed by the NCLT on 11.01.2019, amalgamating M/s RPPPL with assessee company, from the appointed date

M/S. Merino Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 292/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata…………………….................................……Revenue Vs. M/S Merino Industries Ltd.…………....................................……...…..…..Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Merino Industries Ltd …………………….…….......................…… Assessee 5, Alexandra Court, 60/1, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. [Pan: Aaacc9186C] Vs. Dcit, Circle-12(1), Kolkata.…….................................……....…........….. Revenue Appearances By: Shri Shyam Sundar Jha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prakash Nath Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 06, 2025 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Against The Common Order Dated 09.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since The Facts & Issued Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical & Both The Appeals Are Arising Out Of The Same

Section 2(22)Section 250Section 801A

ledger account between holding & subsidiary companies showing NIL balances. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering the revised return filed by the assesse claiming deduction under section 801A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred ... declaring the assessment as bad in law as the learned Assessing Officer did not accept the revised return filed by the assesse. I.T.A No.174/Kol/2019 & I.T.A No.292/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 M/s Merino Industries Ltd 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in ignoring to allow the deduction