← 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

JCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1561/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar / Ms SukanyaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

assessment year under dispute, assessee had filed its return of income on 30.10.2007, declaring income of Rs.1920,40,47,165/-. Subsequently, assessee filed its revised return of income on 17.03.2009, declaring income of Rs.1923,71,32,402/-. In course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee ... justified in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the value of Fringe Benefit declared by the assessee itself in its original as well as revised return of Fringe Benefit Tax filed u/s. 115W of the Income Tax Act, 1961 although all the material facts were available with the assessee

Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. - 1(4), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1056/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12
Section 153CSection 250Section 43BSection 80I

assessment year under dispute,\nassessee had filed its return of income on 30.10.2007, declaring income of\nRs.1920,40,47,165/-. Subsequently, assessee filed its revised return of income on\n17.03.2009, declaring income of Rs.1923,71,32,402/-. In course of assessment\nproceeding, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that the assessee ... justified in directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the value of\nFringe Benefit declared by the assessee itself in its original as well as revised return\nof Fringe Benefit Tax filed u/s.115W of the Income Tax Act, 1961 although all the\nmaterial facts were available with the assessee at time

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Thomson Reuters India Services Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by revenue in IT(TP)

ITA 843/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)

Business Information India Private Limited (TBI) and RIPL. b) That the learned AO failed to appreciate that as the time limit for filing the revised return of income for AY 2010-11 had elapsed post the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Smifs ... fresh claim made by assessee even if such a claim was not made in the return of income or by way of a revised return. 14.1. On the contrary, the Ld.DR submitted that no details in respect of the claim was furnished by assessee and the Ld.AO could 54 I.T.A

M/S Thomson Reuters International Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 542/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)

Business Information India Private Limited (TBI) and RIPL.\nb) That the learned AO failed to appreciate that as the time limit for filing\nthe revised return of income for AY 2010-11 had elapsed post the order of\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Smifs

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Thomson Corporation (International) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 234/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11
Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)Section 7A

Business Information India Private Limited (TBI) and RIPL.\nb) That the learned AO failed to appreciate that as the time limit for filing\nthe revised return of income for AY 2010-11 had elapsed post the order of\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Smifs

Mukul Monga, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2936/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2017-18 Mukul Monga, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, H. No. 100, Sector-30, Ward 2(5), Gurgaon Gurgaon Haryana Pan No. Ajqpm2226F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri SomailFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

this regard, it is held that the appellant 4 cannot file any alternate or substantial claim of exemption or deduction other than filing the revised return of income. The reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Goetze (India ... 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

Mitsui Kinzoku Components Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Two

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3912/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

section 139". In the instant case, neither the assessee company claimed the aforesaid refund in its original return of income nor had filed any revised return of income. Taking into consideration the statutory provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961, the refund of amount Rs. 36,06,590/- as claimed ... instant case, the AO noted neither the assessee company claimed the aforesaid refund in its original return of income nor had filed any revised return of income. The AO thereafter, taking into consideration the statutory provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961, held that the refund of amount

Mitsui Kinzoku Components Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Two

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3911/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

section 139". In the instant case, neither the assessee company claimed the aforesaid refund in its original return of income nor had filed any revised return of income. Taking into consideration the statutory provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961, the refund of amount Rs. 36,06,590/- as claimed ... instant case, the AO noted neither the assessee company claimed the aforesaid refund in its original return of income nor had filed any revised return of income. The AO thereafter, taking into consideration the statutory provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961, held that the refund of amount

Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Two

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3910/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

section 139". In the instant case, neither the assessee company claimed the aforesaid refund in its original return of income nor had filed any revised return of income. Taking into consideration the statutory provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961, the refund of amount Rs. 36,06,590/- as claimed ... instant case, the AO noted neither the assessee company claimed the aforesaid refund in its original return of income nor had filed any revised return of income. The AO thereafter, taking into consideration the statutory provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961, held that the refund of amount

Hemant Enterprises, Nashik vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 394/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepa Khare-AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.D. Kulkarni, DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 199Section 234A

interest u/s 234A, the assessee filed the original return within due date u/s 139(1) and verified the same on ie 15.10.2019. Thereafter, the revised return was filed which was processed u/s 143(1). Therefore, the question of charging interest does not arise. The AO is directed to delete

Sachin Bhaskar Kurandale, Pune vs. ITO, Wrd-13(2), Pune

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

ITA 1249/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1249/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sachin Bhaskar Kurandale, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(2), Pune. A/P Annapur, Tal- Shirur, Dist.- Pune- 412218. Pan : Bchpk8331E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Denying The Relief U/S 89(1) Amounting To Rs. 1,56,662/-.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari (Virtual)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 89Section 89(1)

relief u/s 89(1) of the IT Act since it was claimed in the original return of income but was not claimed in the revised return of income. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act and vide order dated 11.12.2019 determining ... appellant filed original return of income on 02.07.2017 disclosing total income of Rs. 15,75,530/-, The return was revised 3 times. First revised return was. filed on 20.12.2017 disclosing total income of Rs. 16,09,690/-. Second revised return was filed on 31.03.2018 disclosing total income of Rs.6

Integrated Service Point Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-2(4), Chennai

ITA 1883/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Pvt. Ltd.,) Vs. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

filing a revised statement of total income during the assessment proceedings as there is no opportunity to file a revised return for the said assessment year, being a regular assessment u/s.143(2). * The amount of income admitted in revised total income after payment of taxes stands at Rs.1 ... completed u/s.143(3) pursuant to notice u/s.143(2). The assessment orders were passed on 30.03.2024, with details as under: Returned Income Revised / Returned AY u/s 139(1) Income Assessed Income 2016-17 Rs.1,75,96,950/- Rs.4,12,56,380/- Rs.15,80,88,793/- 2019-20 Rs.21,72,390/- Rs.2

Integrated Service Point Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

ITA 1882/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

filing a revised statement of total income during the assessment proceedings as there is no opportunity to file a revised return for the said assessment year, being a regular assessment u/s. 143(2). * The amount of income admitted in revised total income after payment of taxes stands at Rs.1 ... completed u/s.143(3) pursuant to notice u/s. 143(2). The assessment orders were passed on 30.03.2024, with details as under: Returned Income Revised / Returned AY Assessed Income u/s 139(1) Income 2016–17 Rs.1,75,96,950/- Rs.4,12,56,380/- Rs.15,80,88,793/- 2019–20 Rs.21

Integrated Service Point Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai

ITA 1881/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Chennai. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

filing a revised statement of total income during the assessment proceedings as there is no opportunity to file a revised return for the said assessment year, being a regular assessment u/s.143(2). * The amount of income admitted in revised total income after payment of taxes stands at Rs.1 ... Rs.10,57,47,420/- 2022-23 Rs.22,77,52,561/- Rs.26,56,58,571/- 15. For A.Y. 2022-23, since no revised return was permissible, a revised statement of total income admitting additional income of Rs.1,01,62,445/- (after tax payment) was filed during assessment proceedings. 16. The assessee

ACIT, Chennai vs. Integrated Service Point Limited, Anna Nagar

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

ITA 1879/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

filing a revised statement of total income during the assessment proceedings as there is no opportunity to file a revised return for the said assessment year, being a regular assessment u/s. 143(2). * The amount of income admitted in revised total income after payment of taxes stands at Rs.1 ... completed u/s.143(3) pursuant to notice u/s. 143(2). The assessment orders were passed on 30.03.2024, with details as under: Returned Income Revised / Returned AY Assessed Income u/s 139(1) Income 2016–17 Rs.1,75,96,950/- Rs.4,12,56,380/- Rs.15,80,88,793/- 2019–20 Rs.21

ACIT, Nungambakkam vs. Integrated Service Point Limited, Anna Nagar

ITA 1876/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 घोषण की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.12.2025 :- 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

filing a revised statement of total income during the assessment proceedings as there is no opportunity to file a revised return for the said assessment year, being a regular assessment u/s.143(2). * The amount of income admitted in revised total income after payment of taxes stands at Rs.1 ... pursuant to notice u/s.143(2). The assessment orders were passed on 30.03.2024, with details as under: Returned Income Assessed Income AY u/s 139(1) Revised / Returned Income 2016-17 Rs.1,75,96,950/- Rs.4,12,56,380/- Rs.15,80,88,793/- 2019-20 Rs.21,72,390/- Rs.2

ACIT, Nunagambakkam vs. Integrated Service Point Limited, Anna Nagar

ITA 1874/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon'Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 Integrated Service Point Ltd., (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd.,) The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Central Circle-2(4), 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23 The Dy./Asst. Commissioner Of Integrated Service Point Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (Formerly Integrated Service Point Vs. Pvt. Ltd.,) 6C, 6Th Floor, Gaiety Palace I/L, Blackers Road, Anna Road H.O., Chennai - 600 002. Pan: Aaaci 9527P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 30.12.2025 - : 2 -:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCA
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

filing a revised statement of total income during the assessment proceedings as there is no opportunity to file a revised return for the said assessment year, being a regular assessment u/s.143(2). * The amount of income admitted in revised total income after payment of taxes stands at Rs.1 ... completed u/s.143(3) pursuant to notice u/s.143(2). The assessment orders were passed on 30.03.2024, with details as under: Returned Income u/s 139(1) Revised / Returned Income Assessed Income AY 2016-17 Rs.1,75,96,950/- Rs.4,12,56,380/- Rs.15,80,88,793/- 2019-20 Rs.21,72,390/- Rs.2

Hemmanahally Siddachari Nagamani, Mandya Karnataka vs. Income Tax Officer Ward1 & Tps Mandya, Mandya

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

ITA 1618/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mrs. Hemmanahally Siddachari Nagamani, Near Sathygraha The Income Tax Soudha, Officer, B M Road, Ward – 1 & Tps, Shivapura Maddur, Mandya. Vs. Mandya Dt – 571 429. Pan: Abnpn7222R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 156Section 234ASection 249Section 271ASection 69

brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 31/03/2018. Thereafter a revised return u/s. 139(5) was also filed on 23/12/2019. The AO had issued notices u/s. 142(1) of the Act but the assessee had not responded

DCIT CC 8( 2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed, and the assessment order dated 25

ITA 4351/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 250Section 254Section 80G

running a charitable hospital. For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed its original return of income on 30.09.2009 and thereafter filed a revised return on 30.03.2010, declaring nil total income after claiming exemption under section 11 of the Act. 4. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice

Tata Consultancy Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Incometax 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of both, revenue and assessee are partly allowed for all the three assessment years

ITA 1518/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Sr. Advocate and Shri Manish Kumar Kanth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 1Section 92CSection 92C(3)

disallowance of claim of deduction under section 10AA in respect of interest income which was claimed during the course of assessment proceedings, without filing revised return of income?" 15. "Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing deduction under ... case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT (284 ITR 323), such fresh claims cannot be entertained by the Assessing Officer without a revised return." On the Issue of Provision of Software, Technical and Consultancy Services: 1.1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case