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

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

ITA 174/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

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. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in ignoring to allow the deduction under section 801A (4) (IV) in spite of accepting eligibility

Devadass Suresh, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result the entire addition confirmed by the ld

ITA 2190/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soudararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing

Section 69A

assessee submitted that the assessee is a salaried person and he has received professional fee from M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd., and he revised return of income declaring gross total income of Rs.3,37,600/- and claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of Rs.33,290/-. Assessee has no other income except

The Kunbi Sahakari Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3463/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanthe Kunbi Sahkari Bank Ltd. Nfac Delhi /Cit (A)-3, Abhilasha Shramik Co-Op. Hsg. Mumbai Society Ltd., Ground Floor, Vs. Kingstone Tower, G. D. Ambedkar Marg, Kalachowki, Mumbai – 400 033 Pan: Aaaat0034A (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

claimed set-off of non-existent loss of Rs 59,09,836/- against its taxable income of the said amount and neither filed revised return nor brought the matter suo moto to the notice of the AO during the assessment proceedings, the AO was justified in levying penalty for furnishing ... retums and representation in tax matters. The claim that the mistake was rectified is also not clear because the assessee neither filed revised return nor brought the matter suo moto to the notice of the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Even after the order of the CIT(A) dated

L & T Technologies Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the additional grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4255/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeel&T Technologies Services Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income L&T House, N.M. Marg, Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai Room No.545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai Pan: Aaccl4310P Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT- DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 170Section 2Section 250Section 37Section 90

slump sale on a going concern basis as the physical assets, manpower and other live assignments/lease/deeds. The assessee filed its revised return of income for the year under consideration on 29/03/2017. Therein, its inter-alia claimed deduction of depreciation on goodwill of Rs.85,40,73,133/- while computing its income

ACIT Cir 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2777/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailbank Of Baroda, C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ……………. Appellant Pan: Aaacb 1534 F V/S Acit, 2(1)(1), ……………. Respondent Mumbai-400051. Acit, Circle - 2(1)(1), Room No. 561, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400020. V/S Bank Of Baroda, C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra ……………. Respondent Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaacb 1534 F

For Appellant: Mr. C. NareshFor Respondent: Mr. Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 28.11.2016, declaring a total income of Rs.2214,42,70,940/-. The assessee filed the revised return of income on 07.03.2018 declaring a total income of Rs.95,30,18,240/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected ... year under consideration, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs.2182,83,81,297/- being interest accrued but not due on investments. In its revised return of income, the assessee deducted this amount from its total income stating that the interest accrued but not due should be taxed on a cash

Bank of Baroda, Mumbai vs. ACIT 2 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1649/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mr. C. NareshFor Respondent: Mr. Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

M/S. Mashreq Bank Psc., Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) - 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1342/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadangshri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2002-03

Section 37Section 44C

Whereas, It offered nil business income after set off of brought forward losses. 5 AY: 2002-03 (Mashreq Bank Psc.) Subsequently, assessee filed a revised return of income on 01.12.2003 declaring total loss of Rs.17,78,01,164/-. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer, while verifying note

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

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

ITA 4063/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Karl Storz Endoscopy Vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2) India Pvt. Ltd. D-181, New Delhi Okhla Industrial Area , Phase-1 New Delhi- 110020 Pan :Aaack4816D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C(2)

issued to the assessee u/s 143(2) of the Act which was served upon the assessee. During the proceedings the assessee company filed revised return of income A.Y. 2008-09 M/s. Karl Storz Endoscopy Vs. ITO 5 declaring NIL income. According to AO the assessee had undertaken international transaction with

Ravi Dinkarrao Agrelwar, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 5(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 468/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: MS. Alfiya Rozie, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(10)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Rs.17,73,900/- u/sec.10(10) of the Act and leave encashment of Rs.3 lakhs u/sec.10(10AA) of the Act. The assessee, later on, filed revised return of income declaring total income of Rs.9,15,490/- and in the revised return the assessee claimed full exemption of leave encashment of Rs.16

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3164/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade, CIT D/R

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

this case, return of income was filed on 28.09.2013 declaring total income at Rs. 1602,66,91,910/-under normal provisions. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return on 24.02.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 1609,22,64,610/-. Assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) dt 17.02.2016 determining total income ... submitted that assessee has claimed Rs. 78.75 crores (78,75,89,112) as deduction u/s 36(1)(viia)(c) in it's revised return of income for AY 2012-13. As such observation of your goodself in the notice at point no. 2 that Rs. 293.24 crores has been claimed

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3161/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade, CIT D/R

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are dismissed and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3157/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade, CIT D/R

Section 1Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

DCIT 9(2), Mumbai vs. Marico Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5574/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri B R Baskaran, Am Dcit, Range 9(2) M/S. Marico Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R. No. 218, Rang Sharda, K. C. Marg, 2Nd Floor, M. K. Road, Vs. Bandra Reclamation, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 050

For Appellant: Shri Milin BakhaiFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H Pande

Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 801BSection 80I

year under dispute, the assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2005, declaring income of Rs.4,74,81,856/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 29.11.2006, declaring Nil income under the normal provisions and book profits of Rs.77,16,00,744/-. 4. In course of assessment

Hyderabad Castings Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 6/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Bleshri Manjunatha. G. Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Surana, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Harshita Chouhan, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801ASection 80I

which is on or before due date u/s 139(1) of the Act. It is also an undisputed fact that revised return filed on 02-11-2018 is a valid return in terms of section 139(5) of the Act. Therefore, once the revised return is a valid return

Ravi Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 167/HYD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.167/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ravi Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-4(4) [Pan : Adopk6597R] Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.Srinivas, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 04/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee, An Individual Entered Into A Development Agreement Cum General Power Of Attorney Vide Document Number 560/2011 Dated 24.03.2011 With M/S Gayathri Construction Company For Joint Development Of A Property. The Assessee Had Not Disclosed The Transaction In His Return Of Income. Therefore, The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri A.Srinivas, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 54F

deduction u/s 54F of the Act, towards amount of capital gains derived from transfer of property, in pursuant to joint development agreement, by filing revised return on 27.12.2018. The Ld.CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taking note of certain judicial precedents, rejected the ground taken ... claimed in original return of income filed on 15.11.2018. Further, in respect of deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Act, on the basis of revised return filed on 27.12.2018, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that the assessee failed to prove that the new residential house property constructed in pursuant to joint

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Maithri Laboratories Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1124/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

towards unaccounted cash receipts from the sale of spent solvents / scrap in all four companies for the relevant assessment years and also filed a revised return in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act and paid taxes on the said unaccounted income. Therefore, the claim of the assessee

ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad vs. M/S. Msn Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

ITA 1123/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

Msn Life Sciences Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1072/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

Msn Life Sciences Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1071/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)

Msn Life Sciences Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 1067/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. andFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 2(22)(e)