← 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.

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.

Pr. CIT v. Ankit Metal & Power Ltd.
109 Taxmann.com 93 · 2019 · High Court
77
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has the power under Section 254 to entertain a claim for deduction not made in the original return of income or a revised return filed before the Assessing Officer.

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

ASST CIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

issued on 06.09.2011 which was served on the assessee by speed post. Appellant had filed a revised return on 14.02.2012 declaring income of Rs.14030,59,55,985/- and claimed a refund of Rs. 2146,05,38,929/-. 2.1. Various statutory notices were issued to assessee and the return was processed ... broadly and is legally unsustainable. A distinction must be drawn between: (a) making a fresh claim before the Assessing Officer otherwise than by a revised return, and (b) raising a legal or factual claim before the appellate authorities. 5.11. The decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3680/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

issued on 06.09.2011 which was served on the assessee by speed post. Appellant had filed a revised return on 14.02.2012 declaring income of Rs.14030,59,55,985/- and claimed a refund of Rs. 2146,05,38,929/-. 2.1. Various statutory notices were issued to assessee and the return was processed ... broadly and is legally unsustainable. A distinction must be drawn between: (a) making a fresh claim before the Assessing Officer otherwise than by a revised return, and (b) raising a legal or factual claim before the appellate authorities. 5.11. The decision of the Supreme Court in Goetze (India

MAHESH DALODRA,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

In the result-the Impugned order is set Aside as and by way

ITA 322/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshimahesh Dalodra Nfac, Delhi बनाम/ Row House No.3, Patel Nagar Vs. Aerodrome Road. Madhya Pradesh (Pan: Aehpd4345Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sanjay Sodani, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 54

return of income originally for the assessment year 2018-19 on 30.08.2018 admitting an income of Rs. 61,74,960/-. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return of Income on 01.09.2018 admitting an income of Rs. 5, 86,260/-. The revised return of income was selected for scrutiny and notices ... Gains of Rs. 56,97,688/-. In the original return of income, assessee offered the Long Term Capital gains to tax. However, in the revised return of income, the assessee claimed the same as deduction u/s.54 of the IT Act. When the assessee was asked to substantiate the deduction claimed

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 8 2 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SKYLINE GREATHILLS, MUMBAI

ITA 3904/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, ARFor Respondent: I.T.A. No.3904/Mum/2025
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

case, from the perusal of the assessment order we notice that the AO has not recorded the fact that the assessee has filed a revised return anywhere in the assessment order. In body of the assessment order where the AO has determined the assessed income, it is the loss ... original return of income that has been considered by the AO and not the loss as per revised return. It is not the case where the revised return is filed beyond the time limit under section 139(5) for the AO to ignore the revised return since the assessee

SKYLINE GREATHILLS ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3466/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain, ARFor Respondent: I.T.A. No.3904/Mum/2025
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

case, from the perusal of the assessment order we notice that the AO has not recorded the fact that the assessee has filed a revised return anywhere in the assessment order. In body of the assessment order where the AO has determined the assessed income, it is the loss ... original return of income that has been considered by the AO and not the loss as per revised return. It is not the case where the revised return is filed beyond the time limit under section 139(5) for the AO to ignore the revised return since the assessee

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5465/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

assessee had filed its return of income on 27.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs.4,08,00,448/-. Later on, the assessee filed a revised return on 28.3.2008 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. 3.1 During the year, the assessee was engaged in the business of development and export of computer ... claimed and business income was shown at Rs. 5,69,84,159/-. In the revised return gross income from business and profession was shown at Rs. 626,69,24,986/- and deduction a/s 10A was claimed at Rs. 629,41,97,556/- and loss from business and profession has been

HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5624/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

assessee had filed its return of income on 27.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs.4,08,00,448/-. Later on, the assessee filed a revised return on 28.3.2008 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. 3.1 During the year, the assessee was engaged in the business of development and export of computer ... claimed and business income was shown at Rs. 5,69,84,159/-. In the revised return gross income from business and profession was shown at Rs. 626,69,24,986/- and deduction a/s 10A was claimed at Rs. 629,41,97,556/- and loss from business and profession has been

JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MYDT,SEHORE, MP vs. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 407/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi / Bank Mydt, Acit-3(1), Bhopal बनाम/ Sehore, M.P. Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaalj0022F Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

assessee filed its return of income on 28.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 86,90,950/- and subsequently filed a revised return on 15.12.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 6,88,16,920/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the AO issued notices

MPHASIS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on this issue and the assessment order passed is quashed

ITA 1081/BANG/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mphasis Limited, First Floor, Laurel Building, Deputy Commissioner Of Bagmane Technology Park, Cv Income Tax-Circle Vs. Raman Nagar, Karnataka 560093 4(1)(1), Bangalore Pan – Aaacb6820C Appellant Respondent : Shri. K R Vasudevan Advocate & Shri Assessee By Ankur Pd : Dr. Divya K. J - Cit Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-04-2026

For Respondent: Shri. K R Vasudevan Advocate & Shri
Section 10ASection 254Section 92C

total income of Rs. 288,31,65,798. Following the merger of another company with the assessee, effective from 1 November 2009, a revised return was filed on 29 November 2011, declaring a total income of Rs. 289,11,77,806. The return was selected for scrutiny, and the matter

SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-22(2), DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above and the stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4400/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member Assessment Year 2020-21 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent It(Tp) Appeal No.14/Del/2025 Assessment Year 2021-22 Sumitomo Corporation India Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Circle -22 (2) 501 & 502, 5Th Floor Delhi West Wing, World Mark 1, Asset No.11, Hospitality District Aerocity, New Delhi-110037 Pan No.Aabcs1887M Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 154Section 80GSection 92C

draft assessment order stage. Hence, assessment was still pending on the date of entering into BAPA. in consequence of BAPA, with assessee filing a revised return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, AO/TPO gets a further extension of 12 months to pass the assessment order. Drawing analogy

BAJIRAO SHANKAR JAGDALE ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1389/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe (Sr. DR)
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 250

Ld.CIT(A) has not entertained the new claim made for the first time holding that the same should have been made in the revised return of income. Aggrieved with the finding of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR argued and filed a paper ... Income-tax Act, 1961. The employer had also deducted tax at source on the said amount. No exemption was claimed in the original or revised return of income. The CPC, Bengaluru issued an intimation under section 143(1) for the said year without granting any exemption, and no rectification

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VALVAYA CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 9122/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarasst. Cit-14(1)(2) Valvaya Capital Private Limited Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Shop No. 14, Lovely Home Chs Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Ltd., Church Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400 029 Pan/Gir No. Aabce 8567 E (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Reepal Trashawala Respondent By : Shri Nayanjyoti Nath Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Department, Against Order Dated 27.10.2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2015-16. 2. The Sole Issue Arising In The Present Appeal Relates To Reduction Of An Amount Of Rs.5,70,31,124/-, Being Capital Work-In-Progress, While Computing The Capital Gain U/S. 50B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short).

For Appellant: Shri Reepal TrashawalaFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath
Section 115JSection 50B

Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) observed that the revised claim of the assessee cannot be accepted otherwise than through a revised return of income. Since, the assessee had not filed any revised return of income, the A.O. rejected assessee’s claim. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before ... assessee, in the context of facts and materials available on record, ld. First appellate authority held that there was no need to file a revised return of income as the assessee had already offered the capital gain computed u/s. 50B of the Act in the original return of income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. K C INDIA LIMITED, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2889/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Vs. Kc India Ltd. Room No. 316A, Cr A-6, Nimiri Commercial Building, I.P. Estate, Complex Ashok Vihar, New Delhi – 110002 Phase-Ii, Delhi – 110052 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4893N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. SatyajeetGoel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ISection 8O

return of Income for A.Y. 2018-19 was filed by the assessee on 30.09.2018 declaring total income at Nil. Assesseefurther filed revised return on 08.03.2019, declaring income at Rs. Nil. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 determining total income ... Agreement (PPA) - In each of assessment years in question, initially a return of income was filed disclosing total income at NIL and thereafter, a revised return was filed disclosing income after claiming deduction under section 80-IA on interest received - Claim of assessee under section 80-IA was rejected

RAJGOR AGRO LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2105/AHD/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Apr 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Addl./Joint Cit(A), Who Has Confirmed The Disallowance On The Ground That The Assessee Opted For New Tax Regime Under Section 115Baa Of The Act & Filed Form No. 10-Ic On 28.12.2024. Since Both The Return Of Income & Form No. 10-Ic Have Been Filed Belatedly, The Addl./Joint Cit(A) Dismissed The Assessee’S Appeal.

Section 10BSection 10B(5)Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 72

facts, wherein in the original return of income the assessee had claimed benefit under section 10B of the Act and thereafter, a revised return of income was filed by the assessee foregoing the claim of benefit of section 10B of the Act. As an afterthought the assessee filed a declaration ... 491/446 ITR 1. The assessee furnished the original return taking the benefit of section 10B and did not carry forward the loss. Thereafter, a revised return was filed foregoing the claim of deduction u/s 10B. The AO rejected the withdrawal of exemption under section 10B by holding that assessee

APAR INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC6(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 8757/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pawan Singh () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 32ASection 35A

becomes clear if any assessee has to make a genuine, verifiable and undisputed claim in the Income computation after the last date of revised return, he has such chance either through the appeal process or through S.119(2)(b). However, at the same time it has to be understood, making ... scheme of deduction claim appears as a design by initially not claiming the allowance u/s.32AC in the original Rol or even by filing the revised return since necessary verifications might follow in scrutiny proceedings, but to claim the allowance u/s.32AC in the appellate process so as to prevent

THE JAND CO-OPERATIVE P.S LTD,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JARGON

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

ITA 1075/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1073 & 1075/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Jand Cooperative P S Ltd., Ito, बना Village Jand Barundi Ward 2, Bo Ludhiana, Jagraon, म Punjab Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaabt1846P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) Assessee By : Sh. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate L(Virtual Mode) Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2026 आदेश/Order These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, Both Dated 23.06.2025 & 24.06.2025 Respectively, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2018–19 & 2019–20, Arising Out Of Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Since The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Is Identical, The 2 1073 & 1075-Chd-2025 Same Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Sh. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate l(Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(f)

justified. The ld. CIT(A) further held that since the assessee failed to file a 3 1073 & 1075-CHD-2025 revised return within the time prescribed under section 139(5) or to seek timely rectification under section 154, the claim could not be entertained at the appellate stage. Reliance ... submitted that the assessee had not complied with the statutory mechanism provided under the Act for correction of errors, i.e., by filing a revised return or by seeking rectification within time. It was argued that the CPC has rightly made the adjustment based on the information available in the return

THE JAND MILK CO-OPERATIVE P.S. LTD,VILLAGE JAND BARUNDI BO LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 , JAGRAON

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

ITA 1073/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Apr 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1073 & 1075/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 & 2019-20 The Jand Cooperative P S Ltd., Ito, बना Village Jand Barundi Ward 2, Bo Ludhiana, Jagraon, म Punjab Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaabt1846P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) Assessee By : Sh. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate L(Virtual Mode) Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2026 आदेश/Order These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, Both Dated 23.06.2025 & 24.06.2025 Respectively, Pertaining To Assessment Years 2018–19 & 2019–20, Arising Out Of Intimation Issued Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Since The Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Is Identical, The 2 1073 & 1075-Chd-2025 Same Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Sh. Tejinder Joshi, Advocate l(Virtual Mode)For Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(f)

justified. The ld. CIT(A) further held that since the assessee failed to file a 3 1073 & 1075-CHD-2025 revised return within the time prescribed under section 139(5) or to seek timely rectification under section 154, the claim could not be entertained at the appellate stage. Reliance ... submitted that the assessee had not complied with the statutory mechanism provided under the Act for correction of errors, i.e., by filing a revised return or by seeking rectification within time. It was argued that the CPC has rightly made the adjustment based on the information available in the return

RAKESH AGARWAL,MATHURA vs. ACIT-3 , MATHURA

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

ITA 92/AGR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshrakesh Agarwal, Vs. Asstt. Cit-3, 30, Sewa Kunj, Vrindaban, Mathura Mathura (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acipr8951M Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)

assessment year 2012-13 was filed by the Assessee on 30-07- 2012 declaring total income of Rs. 51,94,980. The revised return was filed on 15-08-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 52,11,350 and agricultural income of Rs. 1,25,991. A survey under Section

SANGHVI TARACHAND POONANCHAND,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(3), PUNE

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

ITA 175/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Sanghvi Tarachand Poonanchand Ito, Ward-6(3), Pune 31/C, New Timber Market, Vs. Bhavani Peth S.O., Pune – 411042 Pan: Aabhs9444R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal Department By : Shri Gaurav K Singh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-04-2026

For Appellant: Shri Sarvesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh, JCIT
Section 139(5)Section 147Section 270A

filed any condonation application for such delay. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an HUF and has filed revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 2 referred to as ‘the Act’) on 31.03.2021 declaring total income

BPTP LIMITED RESULTING COMPANY OF M/S NATIVE BUILDCON PVT LTD WHICH MERGED WITH M/S BPTP LIMITED,DELHI vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE / DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 7537/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Before Shri Mahavir Singh & Before Shri Before Shri Mahavir Singh & Mahavir Singh & Shri Shri Manish Agarwal Shri Shri Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalmanish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Senior DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 244A

during assessment year 2022-23. As the assessee cannot claim TDS in respect of revenue booked in earlier assessment years as time to file revised return is over, hence, TDS was claimed as and when TDS was deducted and deposited, that is the case in assessment year 2022-23. Assessee