“revised return”

Assessment ProceduresSection 139(5)Section 139(5)10,551 judgments

The decision most relied on for revised return is Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (284 ITR 323), cited in 1,842 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on revised return

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT

284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court

1,842

citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders

349 ITR 336 · 2012 · High Court

956

citing judgments

Appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims or revised computations of income made by an assessee, even if these were not submitted through a revised return of income.

CIT v. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd.

306 ITR 42 · 2008 · High Court

349

citing judgments

An assessee can make an additional claim for deduction or file a revised computation of income during assessment proceedings, even if a revised return of income has not been filed. Such additional claims or grounds can also be admitted at the appellate stage.

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.

341 ITR 293 · 2012 · High Court

205

citing judgments

A Commissioner can revise an assessment order under Section 263 if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This includes cases where the Assessing Officer fails to make further inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements in the return.

CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

251 ITR 9 · 2001 · Supreme Court

179

citing judgments

A penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is not automatically leviable merely because a higher income is declared, even after a search or in a voluntarily revised return. The initial burden to prove concealment or inaccurate particulars lies with the Revenue.

Madhya Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal

241 ITR 124 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

A penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied if an assessee files a revised return to buy peace and avoid litigation, and the revenue accepts this without objection.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT

220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

35. In Virbhadra Singh (HUF) v. Pr. CIT

298 CTR 393 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

Where no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer in passing an assessment order after accepting a revised return, the Commissioner acts within their power under section 263 to direct a fresh assessment.

Judgments citing revised return

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Nashik vs. Yogi Cotex Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2058/PUN/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Oct 2025

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2058/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vs Yogi Cotex Private Acit, Central Circle-1, Nashik Limited, 4A, Vikas Centre, S V Road, Santacruz West, Mumbai-400054 Maharashtra Pan-Aaacy5355P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale-

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

various group entities under section 153A and 139(5), including Rs.81,01,600/- by the appellant itself for the year under consideration in its revised return filed on 30.03.2019. This disclosure related to unaccounted scrap sales, which were the claimed source of the funds referred to in the WhatsApp chats ... income derived from scrap sales in the aftermath of the search proceedings conducted on 17.01.2018. These disclosures were duly reflected in their revised returns u/s 153A and 139(5), which have been accepted by the Department. The generation of income (through scrap sales) and its subsequent use or 8 movement

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Lahari Holiday Homes (P) Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, in terms of our above observation

ITA 600/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.600/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22) Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Lahari Holiday Homes Income Tax, Circle 5(1), Vs. (P) Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacl8925C (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri J J Varun, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri J J Varun, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik

Section 115BSection 139Section 139(5)

under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) claiming MAT credit. Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return on 15.02.2022, opting for the concessional tax regime under section 115BAA of the Act. The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) rejected the revised claim on the ground that ... once the assessee filed the original return under MAT, subsequent exercise of section 115BAA option through a revised return amounts to “withdrawal” prohibited by CBDT Circular No. 29/2019. The Ld. AO further disallowed the set-off of brought-forward business losses of Rs.3,17,89,595/- and capital losses

Vitp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle8(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 574/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood (Judicial Member), Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala and Mahima GoudFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)Section 80I

Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and Rs.63,69,63,187/- under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 30.11.2018 declaring total income under the normal provisions at Rs.Nil and book profit of Rs.53,48,03,873/- under section 115JB

Vitp Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle8(1), Hyderabad

ITA 573/HYD/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.573 & 574/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vitp Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 8 (1) Pan:Aaccv2672G Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Advocates Percy Perdiwala & Mahima Goud राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By:: Shri Shahnawaz-Ul-Rahman, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 08/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: These Two Appeals Are Filed By Vitp Private Limited (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Hyderabad, (“Ld.Pcit”), Dated 30/03/2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. As Both The Appeals Are Interrelated & Belongs To The Same, Both Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Advocates Percy Perdiwala andFor Respondent: : Shri Shahnawaz-ul-Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801A

PCIT has erred in law and on facts in considering the matter w.r.t claim of deduction under section 801A of the Act in the revised Return of Income ("ROI"), as being erroneous without establishing the same. 6. The learned PCIT has erred in law and on facts in considering ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and Rs.63,69,63,187/- under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 30.11.2018 declaring total income under the normal provisions at Rs.Nil and book profit of Rs.53,48,03,873/- under section 115JB

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 901/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

circumstances of the case in allowing TDS credit of Rs.19,65,40,178/- only against Rs.20,40.80,150/- claimed by the appellant in the revised return of Income and/or before DRP/AO, thereby allowing a short-credit of Rs.75,39,972/-, Transfer Adjustment on account of payment of royalty 12. That

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 6949/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

M/S Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and

ITA 287/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35Section 43B

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above and the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1024/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Spl. Counsel for the Department

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 32Section 35Section 43B

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi vs. Shri Upendra Prasad, Loherdaga

In the result, both i.e. the appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 167/RAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayd.C.I.T., Shri Upendra Prasad, Circle-2, Prop. M/S Bina Cement, Near Block Vs. Ranchi. More, Loherdaga-835302 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Alypp 3084 C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

submission that the ld. CIT(A) when adjudicating this issue had granted the assessee the benefit of additional ₹ 32.00 lacs disclosed in the revised return and had given 20% deduction in respect of CPWD rates and 15% rebate for self supervision. The ld. CIT(A) had also considered the balance ... liable to be reversed. 4. In reply, the ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the investment in the property as per the revised return was ₹ 33,98,402/- and the investment by the wife has been already considered by the Assessing Officer while calculating the difference in the valuation

Bidyut Prakas Bhattacharya, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 52(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2016/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 90

sheet, it was noted that the income from capital gains shown at Rs. 68,28,041/- was not correct which as per the final revised return at pages 22 to 27 of the paper book was shown at Rs. ‘NIL’ on account of short term capital gains earned outside India

The Ramco Cements Ltd., Rajapalayam vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle, Madurai

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

ITA 1203/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 234ASection 234BSection 260Section 80GSection 92C

assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y.2021-22 on 09.03.2022 and declared a total income of Rs.703,53,44,470/- and revised return was filed on 31.03.2022 without any change in the income. Upon scrutiny, an assessment was framed vide order u/s.143(3) dated 13.11.2023, with an addition ... tune of Rs.2,29,90,785/- alone was considered in the computation of income, while the actual TCS credit as claimed in the revised return to the tune of :-3-: ITA. No.:1203/Chny/2025 Rs.2,54,41,766/- was not given, thus resulting in a shortfall of Rs.24

ACIT, Circle-24(1), Mumbai vs. Mahavir Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1134/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Mahavir Associates Income Tax, Circle – 24(1), बनाम Gala No. 1, Apollo Chamber, 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Mogra Pada Road, Andheri Chambers, Mumbai – 400012, East, Mumbai – 400 069, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfm0307L Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.83/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1134/Mum/2025) (A.Y. 2015-16) Mahavir Associates V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Gala No. 1, Apollo बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 24(1), Chamber, Mogra Pada 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Road, Andheri East, Chambers, Mumbai – 400 012, Mumbai – 400 069, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfm0307L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assessee By : Shri Narendra Patel, Ar Revenue By: Shri Annavaran Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- The Instant Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Emanate From The Appellate Order Passed By The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri (Sr. AR)

Section 133ASection 144Section 41(1)

account of stock in the original return filed on 29.09.2015 and further Rs.4,83,750/- on account of cessation of certain liability vide revised return filed on 15.04.2016. The entire assessment is based on the difference in the income as disclosed during the course of Survey and as actually offered ... 83/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Mahavir Associates Mumbai audited statements and figures. The assessee had filed revised return of income to accommodate certain discrepancy however, large volume of discrepancy still existed. The assessee had also deviated and retracted from the income offered at the time of survey proceedings on account

B Y L Nair Charitable Hospital Poor Patients Fund, Mumbai vs. Exem. Ward 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, subject to verification, the appeal of the

ITA 1568/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Dani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui,(Sr. DR)

Section 119(2)(b)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Income however, as per E-filing Acknowledgment, it was electronically uploaded on 01.11.2018 at 00:04:55 hours. It was also submitted that the Revised Return of Income for A.Y. 2018-19 was e-filed under Section 139(5) of the Act on 14. 03. 2019. Furthermore, it is also ... October 2018 at 23:49 hours and Form 10B (Audit Report) was uploaded on 31 October 2018 at 23:56 hours. Further, the Revised Return of Income was e-filed u/s 139(5) on 14.09.2019by the assessee-Trust, to claim TDS as per the corrected 26AS Tax Credit Statement

Caspian Impact Investments Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 749/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.749/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Caspian Impact Vs. Dy.Cit Investments Private Ltd, Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aadcs4132K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Hiten Thakkar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By M/S. Caspian Impact Investments Private Limited, (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit (A)-1, Mumbai (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”), Dated 27.02.2025 For The A.Y. 2019-20. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 43B

disclosure in Schedule BP of ITR pursuant to a proposed adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. However, the income in the revised return was the same as declared in the original return. During the year, the assessee acquired the debt division of M/s. Caspian Impact Investment Advisor ... demerger approved by the Hon’ble NCLT vide order dated 24.10.2019. To give effect to the said demerger, the assessee again filed a second revised return of income on 30.09.2020 declaring total income of Rs.8,58,78,905/- under the normal provisions and Rs.8,42,68,147/- under section 115JB

Sandeep Kumar Singh, Singrauli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Singrauli

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

ITA 7/JAB/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2020-21 Sandeep Kumar Singh, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax B. 8/116, Sect. 15, Nigahi Colony, (Appeals) Nigahi, Singrauli Pan:Bvips2456Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Anoop Kumar Vishwakarma, Adv Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 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 Dated 30.09.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 23.09.2022, Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, The Order Of Learned Assessing Officer As Well As The The Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Based On Incorrect Revised I.T. Return. 2. Because, The Income Offered U/S. 56 & Deduction Claimed U/S. 57 Of The Income Tax In Revised Lt. Return Does Not Relates To The Assessee. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer & The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Making Disallowance / Addition Of Rs.51,42,446/-. 4. Because, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Facts In Giving Finding That "Entire Tds Credit Of Rs.81,729/- Relatable To Total Receipts Of Rs.56,61,867/- (Rs.55,09,367 + Rs.1,52,500) Is Claimed In Revised Return. Thus, It Is Clear That Whatever Income Admitted In Revised Return Is Not Randomly Admitted But Based On 16A Certificate Issued By Deductor M/S Gmr Infrastructure Ltd.

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Kumar Vishwakarma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 56Section 57Section 58

that "Entire TDS credit of Rs.81,729/- relatable to total receipts of Rs.56,61,867/- (Rs.55,09,367 + Rs.1,52,500) is claimed in revised return. Thus, it is clear that whatever income admitted in revised return is not randomly admitted but based on 16A certificate issued by deductor ... expense of Rs. 51,52,446/- relating to earning that income. Thus, the grounds for assessment was based on the incorrect entries in the revised return and the income and the expenditures reflected in the same did not match with his books of accounts. It was, therefore, prayed that

Saurashtra Gramin Bank Manager (F & A), Rajkot vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Rajkot

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

ITA 37/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. A.D. Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

return of income for assessment year 2017-18, has been filed by the assessee, on 28/10/2017, disclosing income of Rs.75,50,27,230/-. Thereafter revised return of income was filed on 27-02-2018, declaring total income at Rs. 54,71,90,830/-. The assessment was completed

Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar vs. ITO Ward2(3), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 13.06,2017 declaring income of Rs. 4,02,330/-. Later on revised return of income was filed on 21.06.2017 declaring income of Rs. 6,31,330/- . The case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny

Aarti Jadhav Gaikwad, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 12, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for

ITA 742/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B

cost on date of acquisition as Rs.17,01,760/- in her return of income. The appellant has not mentioned any additional details in her revised return of income for AY 2017-18 which she filed on 14/09/2018 and the appellant has also not submitted any documentary evidence during the appellate

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. The Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Raigad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 544/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda

Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA