← 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

M/S. Rallis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, 8(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7254/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

Section 234CSection 234C(1)(b)Section 80M

powers to adjudicate fresh claims in the appellate proceedings even when the said claims were not raised by way of a revised return or during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Appellant requests your Honour to please direct the Ld. AO to allow the deduction of Rs.6.76 lacs

Bajaj Auto Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai

ITA 2666/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145(2)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 40

book profit declared of Rs. 6859,55,54,577/- u/s 115JB of the Act remained same in original as well as revised return of income. The return was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices issued under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) were duly complied with. 2.1 In view ... next issue concerns the claim of deduction of education cess amounting to ₹67,94,69,345/-, which was made by the assessee in the revised return of income by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 7.1 Subsequently, the Finance Act, 2022 amended section

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -3(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1150/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

normal provisions of the Act and Book Profit of INR.54,30,88,947/- under Section 115JB of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessee filed a revised Return of Income on 11/03/2014 declaring total loss of INR.1,30,64,21,515/- under normal provisions of the Act and Book Profit of INR.54

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 8(3), Mumbai

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1149/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra & Shri Pravin
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 92Section 92B

normal provisions of the Act and Book Profit of INR.54,30,88,947/- under Section 115JB of the Act. Thereafter, the Assessee filed a revised Return of Income on 11/03/2014 declaring total loss of INR.1,30,64,21,515/- under normal provisions of the Act and Book Profit of INR.54

Rajrani Kishanlal Pahwa, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 996/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat22 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 was issued on 25.03.2015. In response, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 22.04.2015 declaring total income of Rs.3,58,951/-. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed cash and cheque deposits aggregating to Rs.4

Rajrani Kishanlal Pahwa, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 995/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat22 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 was issued on 25.03.2015. In response, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 22.04.2015 declaring total income of Rs.3,58,951/-. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed cash and cheque deposits aggregating to Rs.4

Rajrani Kishanlal Pahwa, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed

ITA 994/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Surat22 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 was issued on 25.03.2015. In response, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 22.04.2015 declaring total income of Rs.3,58,951/-. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed cash and cheque deposits aggregating to Rs.4

Milan Theatres P Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 12(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5072/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 342Section 45(2)

accepted therein. 8. For the assessment year 2017–18, the assessee filed its original return of income declaring a loss. Subsequently, it filed a revised return and thereafter a second revised return. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee also furnished a revised computation of income dated ... Assessing Officer recorded that the total income returned in the second revised return stood increased to Rs. 7,18,10,920/- and was thereafter further increased to Rs. 15,99,97,178/- during the course of assessment proceedings by filing a revised computation of income on 30.11.2019. 9. Vide letter

Kishor Kumar Garg, Joura Road, Morena vs. ACIT, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 363/AGR/2025[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshkishor Kumar Garg, Vs. Acit, Joura Road, Morena, Gwalior, Circle-3(1), Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acopg5428J Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 270A

filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 29.10.2017 declaring total income of ₹22,76,660/-. The assessee filed his revised return on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of ₹47,89,310/- consequent upon re-computation of long-term capital gains. The assessment was completed

Misrilall Jain & Sons, Singhbhum West vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.468/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Misrilall Jain & Sons….…………….…….…............................……….……Appellant M. D. House, Chaibasa Singhbhum West, Jharkhand – 833201. [Pan: Aabfm2851Q] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 30.07.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250

talked about escapement of income to the tune of Rs. 1,32,63,010/- which has already been disclosed by the assessee in the revised return and that the same has I.T.A. No.468/Ran/2025 Misrilall Jain & Sons been accepted. The assessing officer starts its assessment over and above the income disclosed

Mr Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(4), Pune

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

ITA 234/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

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

Suvodeep Pyne, Garia vs. ITO, Ward 63(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2252/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

claimed FTC of Rs. 4,73,779/- u/s. 90 of the Act read with Article 24 of India Australia tax treaty ("DTAA") in a revised return of income filed on 31.8.2018. The Assessee had not filed the Form 67 before filing the return of income. On realising the same ... Assessee filed Form 67 in support of claim of foreign tax credit on 18.04.2020. The revised return of income was processed by Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) electronically and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.05.2020 was passed disallowing the claim of FTC. 5. The Assessee filed a rectification

Suvodeep Pyne, Garia vs. ITO, Ward 63(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.2251&2252/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-21 Suvodeep Pyne…………………..…..……….………….……….……….……Appellant Castle Apt 3B, 129, Garia Main Road, Kamdahari, Garia S.O, W.B-700084.. [Pan: Bbypp8655C] Vs. Ito, Ward-63(1), Kolkata……………………………..…….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Pratim Dutta, Adv. & Sanjana Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 21, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2018-19 & 2020-21 Against Separate Orders Both Dated 09.08.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A) Kochi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 Is Taken As Lead Case For Narration Of Facts. Ita No.2251/Kol/2025 – Brief Facts Of The Case Are That In This 2. Case, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Fy-2017-18, Relevant To The A.Y- 2018-19 On 29.08.2018 By Disclosing Gross Total Income Of Rs. 68,85,998/- & Claimed Deduction A Sum Of Ra.7,455/-. During The Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Disclosed Income From Salary Of

Section 111ASection 112Section 154Section 250Section 90

claimed FTC of Rs. 4,73,779/- u/s. 90 of the Act read with Article 24 of India Australia tax treaty ("DTAA") in a revised return of income filed on 31.8.2018. The Assessee had not filed the Form 67 before filing the return of income. On realising the same ... Assessee filed Form 67 in support of claim of foreign tax credit on 18.04.2020. The revised return of income was processed by Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) electronically and intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act on 28.05.2020 was passed disallowing the claim of FTC. 5. The Assessee filed a rectification

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-2, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 1670/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

carrying out scrutiny assessment, is available. He referred to chart in para 7.2 of the written submissions and submits that the assessee filed revised return of income on 22.08.2018 under section 139(5) of the Act and the time available for issuance of notice under section ... issued when the time is available for issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in response to revised return of income. He vehemently argued that the reassessment made thereon is not maintainable when there is time to complete scrutiny assessment under section

D.A.V. Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemption Ward-4, Chennai

ITA 1667/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

carrying out scrutiny assessment, is available. He referred to chart in para 7.2 of the written submissions and submits that the assessee filed revised return of income on 22.08.2018 under section 139(5) of the Act and the time available for issuance of notice under section ... issued when the time is available for issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act in response to revised return of income. He vehemently argued that the reassessment made thereon is not maintainable when there is time to complete scrutiny assessment under section

Kshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7401/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarkshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd. Dcit- Circle 210, Mogra Village, Old 2(1)(1), Nagardas Road, Mumbai- Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 400069 Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aabck8174D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vishwas Mehendale Revenue By Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21.01.2026

Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)Section 270A(9)(a)

total income of Rs. 1,61,91,500/- under normal provisions and book profit of Rs. 89,24,642/- under section 115JB. Subsequently, a revised return was filed on 26.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 1,62,71,890/- under normal provisions, while the book profit under section 115JB remained

Himani Goyal Sharma, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 160/ASR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273B

Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (393 ITR 1) wherein it was held that when AO accepted the revised return filed by the assessee u/s 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed u/s 139 of the Act. For all purposes ... return that has to be looked at is the one filed u/s 153A. Once the AO accepts the revised return filed u/s 153A, the original return u/s 139 abates and becomes non-est. Now, it is trite to say that the "concealment" has to be seen with reference

Himani Goyal Sharma, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 159/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273B

Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (393 ITR 1) wherein it was held that when AO accepted the revised return filed by the assessee u/s 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed u/s 139 of the Act. For all purposes ... return that has to be looked at is the one filed u/s 153A. Once the AO accepts the revised return filed u/s 153A, the original return u/s 139 abates and becomes non-est. Now, it is trite to say that the "concealment" has to be seen with reference

Himani Goyal Sharma, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 158/ASR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273B

Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (393 ITR 1) wherein it was held that when AO accepted the revised return filed by the assessee u/s 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed u/s 139 of the Act. For all purposes ... return that has to be looked at is the one filed u/s 153A. Once the AO accepts the revised return filed u/s 153A, the original return u/s 139 abates and becomes non-est. Now, it is trite to say that the "concealment" has to be seen with reference

Himani Goya Sharma, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 157/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 1Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 273B

Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Neeraj Jindal (393 ITR 1) wherein it was held that when AO accepted the revised return filed by the assessee u/s 153A, no occasion arises to refer to the previous return filed u/s 139 of the Act. For all purposes ... return that has to be looked at is the one filed u/s 153A. Once the AO accepts the revised return filed u/s 153A, the original return u/s 139 abates and becomes non-est. Now, it is trite to say that the "concealment" has to be seen with reference