← 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.

Madhya Pradesh in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Suresh Chandra Mittal
241 ITR 124 · 2000 · High Court
89
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
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.

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

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Hq (Judl.) to CIT-14, Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5765/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am

Section 194Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

amounting to Rs.127,32,60,976/- under the normal provisions and book profit u/s.115JB at Rs.794,64,25,489/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed its revised return of income declaring total income at Rs. Nil, after claiming deduction u/s.80IA(4) of the Act under Chapter VI-A of the Act amounting ... dated 29.03.2013. The assessee had also claimed TDS credit of Rs. 173,76,67,734/- in the revised return as against the claim of Rs.156,89,92,736/- in its original return. Further, the assessee had also claimed deduction u/s.80IA in the revised return which was not claimed

Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Allahabad vs. The Income Tax Officer- 2(1), Allahabad

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

ITA 28/ALLD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 249(3)

shown in the Return u/s 139(1) of I. T. Act only on the wrong advice of Local CA of Allahabad. 5. That the Revised Return to rectify the mistakes could not be filed as the time limit was expired due to this reason Correct Computation of Income is enclosed

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

consideration received on the sale of house property on April 26, 1991, therefore, no capital gain tax is attracted. Thereafter, he filed the revised return claiming that the capital gain tax is not payable as it is long-term capital gain and the assessee has purchased the property within ... before the assessing officer, there cannot be providing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee we get support of the view that the revised return should be considered as disclosure before the assessment. We get support of the view from the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1 & Tps, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 727/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

declaring income of Rs.1804611570/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised its return on 30.03.2017 declaring income of Rs.1091961940/-. The assessment was completed on the basis of revised return filed by the assessee. The statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee submitted reply. During the assessment proceedings, it was found that ... submissions, we noted from the Assessment Order that the AO has passed Order under section 143(3) / 263 / 144B of the Act and the revised return filed by the assessee has been accepted and there is only one addition on only one issue towards interest income received on reserve fund

New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1 & Tps, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 726/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

declaring income of Rs.1804611570/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised its return on 30.03.2017 declaring income of Rs.1091961940/-. The assessment was completed on the basis of revised return filed by the assessee. The statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee submitted reply. During the assessment proceedings, it was found that ... submissions, we noted from the Assessment Order that the AO has passed Order under section 143(3) / 263 / 144B of the Act and the revised return filed by the assessee has been accepted and there is only one addition on only one issue towards interest income received on reserve fund

New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1 & Tps, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 725/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

declaring income of Rs.1804611570/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised its return on 30.03.2017 declaring income of Rs.1091961940/-. The assessment was completed on the basis of revised return filed by the assessee. The statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee submitted reply. During the assessment proceedings, it was found that ... submissions, we noted from the Assessment Order that the AO has passed Order under section 143(3) / 263 / 144B of the Act and the revised return filed by the assessee has been accepted and there is only one addition on only one issue towards interest income received on reserve fund

New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1 & Tps, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 724/BANG/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

declaring income of Rs.1804611570/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised its return on 30.03.2017 declaring income of Rs.1091961940/-. The assessment was completed on the basis of revised return filed by the assessee. The statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee submitted reply. During the assessment proceedings, it was found that ... submissions, we noted from the Assessment Order that the AO has passed Order under section 143(3) / 263 / 144B of the Act and the revised return filed by the assessee has been accepted and there is only one addition on only one issue towards interest income received on reserve fund

New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1 & Tps, Mangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 723/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

declaring income of Rs.1804611570/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised its return on 30.03.2017 declaring income of Rs.1091961940/-. The assessment was completed on the basis of revised return filed by the assessee. The statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee submitted reply. During the assessment proceedings, it was found that ... submissions, we noted from the Assessment Order that the AO has passed Order under section 143(3) / 263 / 144B of the Act and the revised return filed by the assessee has been accepted and there is only one addition on only one issue towards interest income received on reserve fund

DCIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru vs. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 486/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

declaring income of Rs.1804611570/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised its return on 30.03.2017 declaring income of Rs.1091961940/-. The assessment was completed on the basis of revised return filed by the assessee. The statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee submitted reply. During the assessment proceedings, it was found that ... submissions, we noted from the Assessment Order that the AO has passed Order under section 143(3) / 263 / 144B of the Act and the revised return filed by the assessee has been accepted and there is only one addition on only one issue towards interest income received on reserve fund

DCIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru vs. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 485/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

declaring income of Rs.1804611570/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised its return on 30.03.2017 declaring income of Rs.1091961940/-. The assessment was completed on the basis of revised return filed by the assessee. The statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee submitted reply. During the assessment proceedings, it was found that ... submissions, we noted from the Assessment Order that the AO has passed Order under section 143(3) / 263 / 144B of the Act and the revised return filed by the assessee has been accepted and there is only one addition on only one issue towards interest income received on reserve fund

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru vs. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 484/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

declaring income of Rs.1804611570/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised its return on 30.03.2017 declaring income of Rs.1091961940/-. The assessment was completed on the basis of revised return filed by the assessee. The statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee submitted reply. During the assessment proceedings, it was found that ... submissions, we noted from the Assessment Order that the AO has passed Order under section 143(3) / 263 / 144B of the Act and the revised return filed by the assessee has been accepted and there is only one addition on only one issue towards interest income received on reserve fund

DCIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Mangaluru vs. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 483/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

declaring income of Rs.1804611570/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised its return on 30.03.2017 declaring income of Rs.1091961940/-. The assessment was completed on the basis of revised return filed by the assessee. The statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee submitted reply. During the assessment proceedings, it was found that ... submissions, we noted from the Assessment Order that the AO has passed Order under section 143(3) / 263 / 144B of the Act and the revised return filed by the assessee has been accepted and there is only one addition on only one issue towards interest income received on reserve fund

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Mangaluru vs. New Mangalore Port Authority, Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 482/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

declaring income of Rs.1804611570/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised its return on 30.03.2017 declaring income of Rs.1091961940/-. The assessment was completed on the basis of revised return filed by the assessee. The statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee submitted reply. During the assessment proceedings, it was found that ... submissions, we noted from the Assessment Order that the AO has passed Order under section 143(3) / 263 / 144B of the Act and the revised return filed by the assessee has been accepted and there is only one addition on only one issue towards interest income received on reserve fund

Creative Ashtech Power Projects Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1587/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarcreative Ashtech Power V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Projects Private Limited, 7Th बनाम Income Tax, Circle– Floor, Raheja Point 1, Opp. 14(1)(2), Room No. 455, Vakola Market Nehru Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Santacruz (East), Mumbai– Marg, Mumbai – 400020, 400055, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcd1054F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(e)

observed that if the case was not selected for scrutiny the same would have escaped the assessment. There is no provision other than filing revised return of income, to revise the total income. The revised computation of income of the assessee did not absolve the assessee from the default. This

Sbi Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi, Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee for the years under consideration stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4096/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153Section 153(4)Section 80JSection 92C

Ld.AO that it is entitled to deduction of Rs. 13,80,23,106 /- instead of Rs. 4,37,47,671 /- u/s. 80JJAA, however no revised return was filed by the assessee correcting the same. 5.2 He submitted that, in the return of income of AY 2017-18, the assessee claimed ... authorities below rejected the claim of the assessee by observing that, the assessee had not made the claim by way of filing the revised return. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (supra). The relevant portion

Sbi Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner on Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee for the years under consideration stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4095/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

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

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153Section 153(4)Section 80JSection 92C

Ld.AO that it is entitled to deduction of Rs. 13,80,23,106 /- instead of Rs. 4,37,47,671 /- u/s. 80JJAA, however no revised return was filed by the assessee correcting the same. 5.2 He submitted that, in the return of income of AY 2017-18, the assessee claimed ... authorities below rejected the claim of the assessee by observing that, the assessee had not made the claim by way of filing the revised return. The Ld.AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT (supra). The relevant portion

DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs. United Tech Ventures Pvt Ltd, C. G. Road, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 214/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 214/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Dcit United Tech Ventures Pvt Ltd., Vs. Circle 4(1)(1), 605, Samedh Complex, Nr. Ahmedabad Associated Petrol Pump, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380006 [Pan : Aabcu 0357 N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा")रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Vihar Soni, Ar +,थ. की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Appellate Order Dated 07.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”), Arising Out Of The Reassessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “The Act” In Short), Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Private Limited Company, Filed Its Original Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 On 01.10.2018, Declaring Rs. Nil Income & Claimed Current Year Loss Of Rs.6,36,309/-. The Assessee Also Filed A Revised Return Claiming Current Year Loss Of Rs.19,34,006/-. The Returns Were Processed Under Regular Assessment Under Section 143(3) & The Order Was Passed On 08.03.2021, Accepting The Returned Loss. Thereafter, The Assessment Was Re-Opened On Account Of Accommodation Entry Of Rs.1.5 Crores Received From Dishman Group. Hence, A Show Cause Notice U/S 148A(B) Of The Act Was Issued To The 2 Dcit Vs. United Tech Ventures Pvt Ltd Ay : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vihar Soni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148ASection 68

declaring Rs. Nil income and claimed current year loss of Rs.6,36,309/-. The assessee also filed a revised return claiming current year loss of Rs.19,34,006/-. The returns were processed under regular assessment under Section 143(3), and the order was passed on 08.03.2021, accepting the returned loss

Shankare Gowda, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 323/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Shankare Gowda No.2314/A/1681/A, Behind Bescom Office Subhash Nagara Ito Nelamangala Vs. Ward 4(3)(3) Bengaluru Rural 562 123 Bengaluru Karnataka Pan No : Bozpg9856G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sri Mohit Ashok Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48

return of income for the AY 2018-19 on 31.08.2018 declaring total income of Rs.17,58,75,354/-. Thereafter, the assessee filed the revised return of income on 20.10.2018 by declaring total income of Rs.13,88,75,354/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny ... issue “Reduction of income in revised return and claim of refund”. The AO served notice u/s 143(2) as well as 142(1) of the Act and accordingly the assessee filed his reply on various dates along with the copy of sale deed in respect of full value of consideration

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Itc Ltd

ITAT/89/2025HC Calcutta21 Jul 2025

Bench: The Learned Tribunal – One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Which Have Been Disposed Of By A Common Order, Impugned In This Appeal. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration :

For Appellant: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate
Section 14ASection 260ASection 37(1)Section 40a

income of Rs. 61,09,14,46,480/- and book profit under Section 115JB at Rs. 5883,58,39,895/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return on 30.03.2012 showing the total income of Rs. 58,19,55,22,380/- and book profit under Section 115JB ... officer to consider the appellant’s claim when the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to consider the claim made by the assessee in the revised return filed after the time prescribed under Section 139(5) for filing a revised return had already expired. Therefore, the decision in Shriram Investments(Supra

Balasubramanian Saravanan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-17(7), Chennai

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

ITA 1498/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Murali, CAFor Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 90

return of income was filed u/s.139(1) of the Act 31.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.22,68,354/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 09.02.2018 returning an income of Rs.19,00,020/-. The return was processed and intimation was issued u/s.143(1) of the Act on 30.03.2019 wherein