“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

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

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

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

Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Lalbahadur Credit Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Belgaum

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 277/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 277/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Jinnappanna Chougule Lalbhahdur Credit Souharda Sahakari Sangh Niyamit 2471, Lalbahadur Akkamahadevi Chowk, At Post: Shirguppi Tal.:Athani Dist.:Belgaum. Pan : Aagas8466F . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer Ward-(521)(1), Karwar. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Jaykumar Patil [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073446535(1) Dt. 19/02/2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ Hereafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 26/09/2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereafter] For Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ Hereafter].

For Appellant: Mr Jaykumar Patil [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

adjudication on merits. 3. The long and short of the case is that; the assessee is a credit co-operative Sangh/society which filed its revised return of income [‘ITR’ hereafter] on 10/02/2021 declaring NIL income after claiming chapter VI-A deduction

M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, Dhanbad vs. ACIT Cir-1, Dhanbad

In the result, both appeals of revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 291/RAN/2017[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.291,293,294/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacb 7934 M & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.300 & 302/Ran/2017 (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Vs. M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M & Cross Objection Nos.09 & 11/Ran/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.300&302/Ran/2017) (A.Y :2009-10 & 2011-12) M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Dhanbad Finance Directorate, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, P.O.Bccl, Township, Dhanbad-826005 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Acb 7934 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri M.K.Chowdhary & Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocates राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Rajib Jain, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Ranchi/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.09.2017 & 19.09.2017 For The Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-

For Appellant: Shri M.K.ChowdharyFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 32(2)

Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd., reported in [2006] 284 ITR 323 (SC). 28. The Ld.CIT DR submitted that revised returns have not been filed. It was submission that the Ld. CIT(A) was right in disallowing the claim in view of the decision

Satara Engineering Projects and Equipments Private Limited, Satara vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Satara

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

ITA 2450/PUN/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

assessee has filed its original return within 139(1) and validly exercised the option by furnishing Form 10-ID within that time, the later revised return is only a curative step. Courts have consistently held that a revised return relates back to the original return (Dhampur Sugar Mills ... Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha v. CIT 220 ITR 67 (SC)). Even if the revised return falls after the 139(1) due date, that does not make the exercise of option "belated," because: • The option was already exercised validly in the original return and Form 10-ID. • The revised return does

Shree Hatkeshwara Translines, Pune vs. Ass Commissioner, Income Tax Department Pune

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

ITA 2284/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2284/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vihit ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the claim of the assessee of capitalizing the interest is part of the Audited Financial Statements and no revised return of income has been furnished by it for making alleged claim and in absence thereof such claim is not allowable. 5. We have heard

Nayana Digant Kapadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 20(2)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers

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

ITA 3173/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Nayana Digant Kapadia Income Tax Officer, 152, Ramanuj, 20(2)(1), Mumbai Road No.9, Wadala, Vs. Mumbai – 400 031 (Pan : Aabpk8446R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Satish Mody, Ca Revenue : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Addl /Jcit (A)-3 Delhi Vide Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1074687488(1), Dated 19.03.2025 Passed Against The Intimation Issued By Centralized Processing Center (Cpc), Bengaluru, U/S. 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.11.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32 Erred In Confirming The Order Made U/S 143(1) Dt 30/11/2019 Wherein The Interest Income Of Rs 26,49,581/- From Dlk Commercial Pvt Ltd Was Added As Income Of The Appellant On Accrual Basis Inspite Of The Fact That The Appellant U/S 145 Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145

total income offered to tax under the head income from other sources at INR 14,57,896/-. We note that while processing the revised return, the different between interest income of INR 30,06,671/-reflected in Form 26AS and income of INR 14,57,896/- offered to tax under ... been added without having regard to the disclosures made by the Appellant in Schedule TDS-2 of the revised return wherein the Appellant had clearly disclosed that the Appellant is carrying forward TDS amount of INR 27,42.972/-as the corresponding income has not been further to tax during

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2 (1), Varanasi vs. Prominent Datamatics Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Varanasi

ITA 135/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi05 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 124(1)(a)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)(a)Section 250(1)Section 255(4)Section 69A

person- • fails to make the return required under sub-section (1) of section 139 and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub- section (5) of that section, or • fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section

Guncha Bansal, Agra vs. The ITO Ward 1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is

ITA 488/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 44A

filed return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 on 28.06.2018 and admitted a total income of Rs.27,87,770/-. Subsequently, assessee filed revised return of income on 05.12.2018 and admitted a total income of Rs.15,14,600/-. Case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny ... basis of reduction of income in the revised return of income and claimed refund. Accordingly, notices u/s. 143(2) and 132(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer verified the return of income (ITR-3), in which the assessee

Guncha Bansal, Agra vs. The ITO Ward 1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is

ITA 487/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(2)Section 271ASection 44A

A.C.I.T. CC -3(1), Mumbai vs. Everest Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3988/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Jm & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Am Acit, Cc-3(1), M/S. Everest Food Products Pvt. R.No.402, Kautilya Bhawan, Ltd., G Block, Bkc, Bandra East, Krushal Commercial Complex, Vs. Mumbai – 400051 G.M. Road, Tilak Nagar S.O., Chembur Mumbai – 400 089 Pan: Aafce8947A (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act dated 18.01.2022 declaring total income at Rs.513,06,61,331/- and had also filed a revised return of income dated 29.03.2022 declaring total income at Rs.517,71,99,790/- thereby withdrawing the claim of educational cess

Friends Salt Works and Allied Industries, Gandhidham vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 169/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puglia, Ld. (CIT) DR

Section 143(3)

Works and Ltd. 4. Facts of the case (ITA No. 99/Rjt/2023 – AY-2015-16) The Appellant filed Original Return of Income on 30.09.2015 and Revised Return of Income on 06.10.2016 The same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on the total income returned. In the course of Assessment

Friends Salt Works & Allied Inds., Gandhidham vs. The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Gandhidham, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

ITA 99/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thacker, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puglia, Ld. (CIT) DR

Section 143(3)

Asst CIT Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Shoppers Stop Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, respectfully following the above decisions of the Tribunal, we confirm the aforesaid action of the CIT(A). All the grounds raised by the Revenue are, therefore, dismissed

ITA 6977/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawala &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary

Section 143(3)Section 14A

brief are that the Assessee has filed e-Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 on 28/09/2011. The Assessee filed a revised return on 26/03/2013 declaring income of INR.83,10,09,730/- after claiming certain deductions [such as provision for service tax, depreciation of brand promotion expenses

M/S. Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 16/AHD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 15 & 16/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, CIT. DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

confirming the disallowance amounting to of claim of deduction Rs.4,70,86,739 u/s.10A/10AA of the IT Act, 1961 as claimed in the revised return of income filed by the Appellant 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts

M/S. Sahajanand Laser Technology Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 15/AHD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 15 & 16/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Appellant: Ms. Arti N Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, CIT. DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 35

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward, Kolhapur vs. The New Miraj Education Society, Miraj, Dist. Sangli

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 928/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

section (1) of Section 139 of the Act, whereas, in the facts of the said case the assessee filed such undertaking along with the revised return under Sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the Act and in such facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the twin conditions

Shri Vasantrai Pursotam Kachalia, Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward 2 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 811/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.811/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 बनाम/ Vasantrai Pursotam Ito Ward 2(1)(1), Rajkot Vs Kachalia (Original - Ito Ward 2(1)(5), Rajkot) 210-Shrinathji Complex, Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Road, Canal Road, Rajkot. Rajkot 360001 Rajkot 360002, Gujarat India "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adspk1354Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

income" was actually profit received from selling his Mumbai flat for Rs.35 lakhs. Supporting documents, including sale deeds and computation were provided and a revised return correcting the mistake was filed with no agricultural income shown. The assessee also claimed certain expenditures, as cost of improvement on the flat ... authorities in right perspective. The assessee also calculated capital gain in his return of income and computation of income is also submitted in a revised return. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee under consideration is a poor assessee who has engaged one advocate to handle this case, however

Vallbhbhai Nebhabhai Gojiya, at.Bankodi, Tal.Jamkalyanpur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 286/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 286/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Vallabhbhai Nebhabhai Gojiya, Vs. The Cit(A), Bankodi, Jam Kalyanpur, National Faceless Appeal Centre Dist: Devbhoomi, Dwarka-361315 (Nfac), Delhi – 110003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajgpg9688P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

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

have attached supporting to justify agriculture income. 3. In response to para 4(iv) I would like to clarify that we have not revised return as we were not even aware about this error till date we have received notice u/s 143(2). And as per income tax provision ... revise return after issuance of notice u/s 143(2). I here request you to allow to rectify return to correct errоr. Further clarification: After considering all income, Withdrawals and agriculture income of FY 2019-20 (AY 2020-21). My Total Capital account closing balance

Vikas Jain, Kanpur vs. ACIT-CC 2(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 434/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Vikas Jain, Vs. The Acit, H-2/1, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur- Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur 208001 208006 Pan: Abqpj8049R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac On 17.05.2024 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 27.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because There Being No Reason To Believe, Far From There Being Any Material To Form Reasons To Believe, The Proceedings Initiated Right From Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 & The Re-Assessment Framed Thereof Are All Without Jurisdiction Bad In Law, The Order Passed Be Quashed. 02. Because The So-Called Reasons Having Been Recorded Applying Explanation 2(A) To Section 147, Of The Act Which Not Being Applicable, The Very Reason To Believe Being Contrary To The Mandate Of The Section, The Proceedings- Initiated U/S 148, The Reassessment Framed Are All Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, Be Quashed. 03. Because The Approval Given By The Competent Authority U/S 151, Being Mechanical In Nature Without Verification Of Facts, The Notice Issued U/S 148 & The Reassessment Framed Thereafter Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156Section 48Section 50C

Supreme Court decision in the case of Goetze India (2006) 157 taxman 1 (SC) since the assessee had not filed a revised return to correct the claim. He pointed out that the assessee had an opportunity to reduce the income from remuneration when the AO had called

Shamkant Keshav Kotkar (Prop. Nandan Builders), Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1358/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 26Section 263Section 40

this case, Assessee had e-filed return of income on 07.11.2017 declaring total income at Rs.2,14,60,110/-, then Assessee revised return on 03.07.2018 declaring income to Rs.2,18,66,125/-. Ld.AR filed copy of the assessment order dated 12.12.2019 passed ... under : Assessee filed return of Income electronically on 07.11.2017 for A.Y.2017-18 declaring total income at Rs.2,14,60,110/-. Then, Assessee filed revised return of income on 03.07.2018 declaring total income at Rs.2,18,66,125/-. The Assessee‟s case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, the Assessing

Rina Ray, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Darjeeling

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

ITA 2262/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2262/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Rina Ray,………….………………….………...……Appellant C/O. Amit Kumar Ray, St. Josoph School Road, Matigara, Siliguri-734010, West Bengal [Pan:Bhipr4602M] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-3(2), Darjeeling, 27/19, Ajc Bose Road, Near Lal Kuthi, P.O. & P.S. Darjeeling, Darjeeling-734101, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Sujit Basu, Advocate & Shri Rajib Mukherjee, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 31, 2025 O R D E R

Section 148Section 45Section 50CSection 54E

wrongly submitted at ‘e’assessment portal that the capital gain of the appellant was for Rs.9,77,124/- for which no revised return had been filed. The Ld. Assessing Officer did not allow the FMV of the sold property for Rs.6,00,000/- as on 01.04.2001 and had considered