“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

Shri Julio D'Costa, Cavelosim, Goa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Margao

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

ITA 158/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalei T A. Nos.158 &159/Pan/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16 ) Shri.Julio D Costa, Vs Ito-Ward-2, H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6709F) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. Smt.Bertha D Costa, Ito-Ward-2, Vs H.No.337,Mobor,Cavelossim, Blessings Pioneer Salcete,Goa-403731. . Complex, (Pan:Aewpd6748N) Old Market, Margoa-403601,Goa. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Shri.Shrinivas Nayak.Ar Revenue By Smt.Manju Thakur.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 15.09.2025 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assesses (Husband & Wife) Against The Separate Orders Of The Cit(A) -1 Panaji Passed U/Sec143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assesses Are Governed By The Portuguese Civil Code & Provisions Of Section 5A Of The Act. 2. Since The Issues Involved In These Two Appeals Are Common & Identical, Hence They Are Clubbed, Heard & Aconsolidated Order Is Passed. For The Sake Of Convenience

Section 44ASection 5A

Ld.DR mentioned that the assesse has not filed return of income opting for section 44AD of the Act u/sec139(1) of the Act nor revised return of income was filed and this is the first time such claim was made for this assessment year only in comparison to earlier assessment

Riddhi Siddhi Sewa Sansthan, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 899/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Completion Of The Processing U/S 143(1). 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3.Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

excluded by the AO as the entire information was available on record and it should not come under the technicalities of not filing the revised return. Double Dot Finance Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2010) 38 DTR 220 (Mum.)(Trib.) Mere admission of income by the assessee does not give authority

Rajasthan Ophthalmological Society, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 582/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. M.L. MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR a

Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

educational initiatives, and professional training programmes for eye specialists. The appellant filed its original return of income on 01.09.2018 declaring NIL income, and a revised return on 26.10.2018, also at NIL income. The return was processed, and the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the issue

Shyam Metalics Amd Energy Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1074/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Metalics & Engery Ltd…...………..............................……….……Appellant 83, Trinity Tower, 7Th Floor, Topsia, Kol-700046, [Pan: Aahcs5842A] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 23, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 15, 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.04.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 250Section 68

that, the appellate authority had the power to entertain the claim of deduction which was not claimed before the Assessing Officer by filing a revised return. On merits, the ld. AR relied on the following decisions wherein 6 Shyam Metalics And Engery Ltd the incentives received under the FPS & SHIS ... whether the assessee is permitted to raise a fresh claim before us, which was not raised in the return of income or by filing revised return of income before the ld. AO. It is observed that, the assessee had not raised the claim for exclusion of incentive received under

Pr.Commissioner of Incometax-2 vs. M/S.Eygbs (India) Pvt Ltd

ITA/107/2025HC Karnataka12 Sept 2025

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

Section 10ASection 14ASection 260Section 260A

claimed deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act. Immediately after filing its original return for AY 2015-16, the Assessee had filed a revised return voluntarily declaring transfer pricing [TP] adjustments of ₹14,82,00,000/-, which was reworked

Lipi Jain Family Trust, Ashoknagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward Gwalior, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 227/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Lipi Jain Family Trust, Vs. Ito (Exemption), Ward No. 18, Subhash Ward Gwalior Ganj Ashok Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Mp Pan: Aabtl3606J Assessee By : Shri Subhash Chand Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Chand Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)

case and in law the Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal by solely relying on the fact that the revised return was filed after the processing of the original return, without considering the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the statutory rights available ... file another return to rectify mistake due to a bonafide inadvertently mistake on the part of appellant and such return would not be a revised return under section 139(5). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) has erred

Rng Construction Co, Mandideep vs. Addl., Jt., Dy., Asstt.ITO, Bhopal

ITA 230/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

income, annual report, tax audit report, etc., were also filed. As it did not claim deduction for the expenses as enumerated herein before, a revised return was filed on 5-10- 1989, along with a letter of the same date, wherein it was contended that rent

Roshanlal Khichi, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 501/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

case are that the assessee, Shri Roshanlal Khichi is engaged in scrap trading under the name M/s. Bhairavnath Scrap Traders. The assessee filed a revised return for AY 2021-22 declaring income of ₹4,25,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny, and significant discrepancies were noted in purchases from

Rahee Steel Tech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/KOL/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2023-2024

Bench: The Assessing Officer On 10.1.2024, Therefore, The Action Of Ao (Cpc) Is Not Correct & Cannot Be Sustained & So Also The Order Of The Ld Cit(A). The Above View Finds Support From The Decision Of Hon’Ble Gujarat High Court In The Case Of Royal Led Equipment (P) Ltd Vs Ccit (2025) 174 Taxmann.Com 61 (Gujarat), Wherein, The Hon’Ble High Court Has Held As Under:

Section 10BSection 11Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

assessee that it was not necessary to exercise the option under section 10B (8) of the IT Act and even without filing the revised return of income, the assessee could have submitted the declaration in writing to the assessing officer during the assessment proceedings has no substance and the same

Siddhivinayak Steels, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is dismissed

ITA 3138/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantms Suchitra Kamblesiddhivinayak Steels, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sa-36, Lake City Mall, Ward-3(3), Near Big Bazar, Thane. Kapurbawdi, Thane-400608. [Pan :Aaofs7932 B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By: Ms Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 O R D E R Per Suchitra Kamble:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR

steels. The original return of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10 was filed on 30.09.2020, declaring total income of Rs.1,77,334/- and revised return of income was filed on 30.03.2013 of Rs.11,85,269/-. The assessment Asst. Year : 2009-10 - 2– was completed on total income of Rs.57

Nafees Ahmad, Gonda vs. ITO Ward-52(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4046/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhasstt. Year : 2017-18 Nafees Ahmad, Vs. Ito-52(1), New Delhi/ Nfac, 115/21, Rakabganj, Kotwali Nagar, Delhi Gonda, Uttar Pradesh-271001 (Pan: Aiopa0771A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Prashant Kumar Verma, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Emanating From The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi Dated 18.11.2024 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. The Solitary Issue Argued By The Ld. Ar Is Relating To Challenging The Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Dated 27.3.2021 Issued By The Ito, Ward- 52(1), Delhi Is Without Jurisdiction & Is Void Ab Initio & Consequently The Reassessment Is Also Void Ab Initio. 2. Heard Both The Sides & Perused The Records. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Original Return Of Income For The Ay 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,60,450/-. Thereafter, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs. 3,12,480/-. As Per The Financial Transactions Reported In The Its, Assessee Has Deposited Cash Amounting To Rs. 18,29,000/- With Indian Overseas Bank At Gonda

For Appellant: Sh. Prashant Kumar Verma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

filed his original return of income for the AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 2,60,450/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed revised return of income declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,12,480/-. As per the financial transactions reported in the ITS, assessee has deposited cash amounting

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Nuwave E Solutions (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3676/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2007-08] Acit, Vs M/S. Nuwave E Solutions (P) Circle-13(1), Ltd., 3Rd Floor, District Centre, New Delhi Dda Building, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan-Aabcn5790Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pravin Rawal, Cit Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gutpa, Adv., Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Date Of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.03.2011 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Xvi, New Delhi [“Cit(A)”, In Short] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 31.12.2010 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E- Filed Its Return Of Income On 30.08.2007, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 1,45,48,453/-. The Said Return Was Revised On 20.08.2008, Declaring The Same Income As Was Declared The Return Of Income Filed U/S 139(1). The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Various Queries Were Raised Which Were Replied By The Assessee. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Export Of Software & 100% Eou Registered With Director Software Technology Park Of India In Terms Of Registration Certificate Dated 31.03.1999. The Major Shareholder In The Assessee Company Is Shri Anil Gutpa Who Is Having 99% Shareholding & Is Taking Substantial Interest In Day-To-Day Affairs Of The Assessee & Also In Its Associate Enterprises (“Ae”) At Us Who Is The Sole Buyer Of The Software Developed By The Assessee.

Section 10Section 10ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 801A

parcel of net profit derived from export of computer software and claimed deduction u/s 10A of the Act. It goes without saying that the revised return of income stood accepted by Ld. AO and that being so, there was no occasion for Ld. AO to deny the benefit of impugned ... respectively. Therefore, it is prayed that deduction w/s 104 on account of foreign exchange gain as claimed by the assessee in the revised return may please be allowed." 20. Heard the contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the order

Dhritiman Roy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 542/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250Section 90

year 2019-20 u/s 139(1) of the Act on 24.8.2019 by declaring total income of Rs.5,54,360/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed his revised return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act on 31.3.2020 by declaring total income of Rs.32,29,400/- and claimed Foreign Tax Credit ... supporting documents towards the claim of relief u/s 90 of the Act read with Rule 128 of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Thereafter, the revised return was processed and accordingly intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on 18.3.2021 by accepting the additional salary income earned in Denmark

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Nawazbhai Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3581/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sukhsagar Syal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R

Section 10(34)Section 11(7)Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(4)

assessee had not claimed such deduction in the return of income and the claim was raised for the first time during appellate proceedings. No revised return was filed and hence such a claim is not admissible under the law. 3. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances

Mr Abhishek Raesh Raikar, Margao vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Margao

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

ITA 15/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (Judicial Member)

Section 69A

filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 03.11.2017 disclosing a total income of Rs.5,75,340/-. The assessee has also filed the revised return of income on 9.08.2018. Subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and notice u/sec143 (2) and u/sec

Anusha Finvest Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 985/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Saurav Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

other income, if any, which may have otherwise escaped assessment Notice Under Section 148(2) of the Act requiring an assessee to file 'Revised-Return' for re-assessment without disclosing ground/'reasons' is no notice of the case to be met or opportunity to explain. Such a notice for sure ... certain fails to apprise the party even the basic ground/circumstance on the basis of which he is compelled by Assessing Officer to file revised return. It is complete denial of opportunity to defend and answer the Notice. Assessee is left in dark and compelled to make a 'roving and fishing

Samiruddin Khan, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Burdwan

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

ITA 1169/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

1169/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Samiruddin Khan. 1. That I am an Assessee of Income Tax, identified by PAN AHZPK2409B and have filed revised return of income electronically on 01.11.2017 declaring total income at ₹ 2,93,420. The case was subsequently selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason

Rohith Pinto, Mangalore vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)&Tps, Mangalore

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

ITA 904/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 154Section 192Section 194JSection 44Section 44A

issued. The AO rejected the assessee’s stand that it was professional income. The AO further observed that the assessee, in the revised return, showed professional income and also claimed expenses while also seeking benefit of section 44ADA of the Act. The AO held that once 44ADA is applied, further

DCIT, Circle- 19(1), Delhi vs. Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2027/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldcit, Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Circle-19(1), Ltd. Delhi. Vs. 208, 2Nd Floor, Sikka Mansion, Lsc, Savita Vihar, New Delhi-110092. Pan:Aadcp522P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Department By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.09.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), 29, Delhi In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-7/10457/2019- 20 Dated 24.01.2025 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Dated 08.04.2021 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Company & E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 21.11.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.2,80,29,572/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed Wherein Disallowance Of Rs. 3,23,93,370/- Was Made Towards The Interest Paid On Funds Borrowed From Two Entities Namely M/S Sarvottam Securities Pvt. Ltd. & M/S Upaj Leasing Finance Company Ltd. By Holding That The Loan Taken From These Two Companies As Bogus. The Ld. Cit(A) Deleted The Disallowance So Made By Observing That Loans Taken From These Two Companies On Which The Interest Paid Is Disallowed In The Year Under Appeal Was Not Disputed By The Revenue Nor Held As Bogus In The Year When They

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 263

Assessee is a company files its Return of income on 17.10.2016 showing total income of Rs.4,52,68,500/-. The assessee filed revised return on 28.02.2018 showing total income of Rs.4,52,68,500/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and order

Hemant Dhawan, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-58(3), Delhi

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

ITA 5625/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarshri Hemant Dhawan, Vs. Ito, Ward 58 (3), D-371, Second Floor, Anand Vihar, Delhi. Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Afppd1587F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Anand, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Sr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.09.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 11.11.2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That Ld. Cit (A) Rejected The Plea Of The Assessee That Assessee Has Claimed Certain Legal Claim In Revised Return Of Income Filed Before The Assessing Officer. However, As Per The Decision Of Hon’Ble Apex Court In Goetze (India)

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. SR

assessee submitted that ld. CIT (A) rejected the plea of the assessee that assessee has claimed certain legal claim in revised return of income filed before the Assessing Officer. However, as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Goetze (India