“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

Nidhi Jain, Bhopal vs. ITO 3(1), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 559/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year:2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 253(5)

mainly engaged in trading of wheat. During assessment- proceeding, the AO observed that the assessee filed original return alongwith audit report but later filed revised return with a final audit report. There were variations in certain figures in two sets of documents although there was no change in final income ... submitted that it was a human mistake that the provisional data got provided in the return of income. However, the assessee has subsequently filed revised return supported by final audit report. Ld. AR submitted that the AO should have ignored the original data and must have accepted the assessee

Arpit Kumar Tomar, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Lucknow

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

ITA 250/LKW/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2019-20 Arpit Kumar Tomar Income Tax Officer V. Flat No.B3, B21, Krishna 6(1), Lucknow, Uttar Garden, Sadarpur, Ghaziabad, Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh-201021. Pan:Ajbpt8004B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. Balaji, Fca Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13 02 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V. Balaji, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

assessment year 2018-19 or for any subsequent assessment years. 23. Commissioner noted that petitioner had filed return of income on 15.08.2018 and revised return of income on 30.03.2019. Form No.10B was filed on 06.11.2019. Form No.10B was required to be filed within the due date of filing of return

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad, Aurangbad vs. Shri Pankaj Ratilal Mugdiya, Aurangabad

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

ITA 958/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 153ASection 69A

income of assessment year 2021-22. He also asked the assessee to explain as to why the additional income declared in the revised return be not taxed under the provisions of section 115BBE. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee had given contradictory statements ... made on the basis of source of income and not application of income and thus, accept the additional income offered to tax in the revised return of income filed. 16. I have gone through the facts of the case, the reasoning of the AO as per the assessment order

DCIT, Middletonton Row vs. Bishnupur Public Education Institute, Bishnupur

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

ITA 1021/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Bishnupur Public Education Institute Dcit 10B, Middleton Row, 5 Th Floor, Gopeswarpalli, Bishnupur, Vs. Kolkata-700071, West Bengal Bankura-722122, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabtb4176D Assessee By : S/Shri S.M. Surana & Sunil Surana & Dipak Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri S.M. Surana &For Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(9)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)

time allowed under that section (i.e. u/s. 139 of the Act). Section 139 provides time limit for filing of original return, belated return, revised return as well as updated return. Thus, all these category of returns were eligible for consideration under the general time line of section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. R R Industries Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2502/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2502/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. R R Industries Limited, Income Tax, Tvk Industrial Estate, Company Circle 1(1) Guindy, Chennai. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aaacr 3594H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri M.K. Rangaswamy, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. D. Komali Krishna, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Rangaswamy, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. D. Komali Krishna, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

original return of income was filed on 29/09/2018 declaring an income of Rs.2,92,45,700/-. Subsequently the appellant company filed revised return of income on 17.12.2018 with a total income of Rs.2,71,67,850/-. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed on 05.08.2021 assessing

Mahadhan Agritech Limited (Formerly Known As Smartechem Technologies Ltd ), Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai

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

ITA 2226/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mahadhan Agritech Ltd. (Formerly Cit(A)-50, Dcit Cen. 8(1), Known As Smartchem Technologies 656, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ltd.), Mumbai-400021. Survey No. 93, Sai Hira, Mundhwa, Pune-411036. Pan No. Aacca 5046 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: 28/11/2024

Section 132Section 153ASection 69A

course of scrutiny assessment, on 22.12.2017 22.12.2017, the assessee submitted a modified , the assessee submitted a modified computation of income along with a revised return, wherein an computation of income along with a revised return, w computation of income along with a revised return, w enhanced claim of depreciation, including ... subsequent to the filing of the Notably, this sanction was granted subsequent to the filing of the original return of income. However, the said revised return was filed original return of income. However, the said revised return was filed original return of income. However, the said revised return was filed

Lodha Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 12/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025AY 2025-26

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck 7751L ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle, Kota ...... Respondent Acit, Circle-2, Kota ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Kaizen Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Opera Hospital Road, S-67-68, Indra Vihar, Kota- 324005 Pan No.: Aabck7751L ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR, Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

person— (a) fails to make the return required under sub-section (1) of section 139and has not made a return or a revised return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or an updated return under sub-section (8A)] of that section, or (b) fails to comply with ... filed on 31.10.2017 by the assessee company for the A.Y 2017-18. Assessee company has filed its revised return of income on 02.06.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 8,65,87,030/- . The case was selected for scrutiny through Computer assisted selection of cases (CASS) programmed on parameters decided

Lodha Foundation, Jaipur vs. CIT (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 11/JPR/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2025AY 2025-26

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR, Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna, Income Tax Office vs. The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Beed

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 802/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.800, 801 & 802/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Jalna अपीलार्थी / Appellant The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Rajuri Ves, Beed – 431122, Vs. Maharashtra Pan : Aaaat5256C Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Shri Amol Khairnar 02-12-2024 21-02-2025 प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Per Astha Chandra, Jm : आदेश / Order These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders All Dated 28.02.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

paid to the RBI should be allowed as a deduction. The claim for deduction of this amount was made in the revised return filed on 25/02/2015 and the assessing officer had not considered the claim because the revised return was filed beyond the due date. During the course of appellate

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna, Income Tax Office vs. The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Beed

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 801/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.800, 801 & 802/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna, Income Tax Office vs. The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Beed

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 800/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.800, 801 & 802/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Jalna Vs. अपीलार्थी / Appellant The Beed District Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Rajuri Ves, Beed – 431122, Maharashtra Pan : Aaaat5256C प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Shri Amol Khairnar 02-12-2024 21-02-2025 Per Astha Chandra, Jm : आदेश / Order These Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Three Separate Orders All Dated 28.02.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)"] Pertaining To Assessment Years (“Ays”) 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43BSection 43D

Rajendra Shivaji Thete, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2431/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2431/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rajendra Shivaji Thete, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Shivanjali, Plot No.25, H.No.4669, Shivaji Nagar, Ozar Mig, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Abwpt0060C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai : 09.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs. 1,49,704/- On The Ground That The Assesse Had Under Reporting Of Income In Consequence Of Misreporting Of Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 147Section 148Section 270A

appellant in response to the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. We cannot accept the contention of Ld. DR that the revised return was not voluntary therefore the penalty u/s 270A of the Act is inevitable. From the perusal of penalty order, it appears that the penalty u/s 270A

Prashant Balasaheb Kage, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2021/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(8)

Abhishek Sanjeev Nadgeri, Navi Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Navi Mumbai

In the result of the file by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 4499/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 115BSection 131Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 69A

filed the revised ROI declaring income Rs. 747709/- which was earlier at Rs. 274990/- in the original return. The amount was incorporated in the revised return by the assessee in the revised return. The appellant relied on a number of case laws to substantiate its grounds of appeal. The submission

Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2140/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2140/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Santosh Ashokrao Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Barhanpurkar, Flat No.B-8, Deepali Appt., Near Bus Stop Mahatmangar, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aawpb8671N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs. 1,15,938/- On The Ground That The Assesse Had Under-Reported As A Consequence Of Misreporting Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 147Section 148Section 270A

Runwal Enterprises Limited, Sion East vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6915/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt. Renu Jauhrirunwal Enterprises Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Cc-4(1), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Runwal & बनाम Kautilya Bhavan, Omkar Square, Off Eastern Mumbai-400051 Highway, Sion East, Mumbai-400022 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaicp4839P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Mr. Pradeep RawalFor Respondent: Shri. R. R. Makwana

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40A(7)Section 43B

foregoing grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed original return on 26.10.2018 and revised return declaring income of Rs. 50,16,59,280/- on 28.12.2018. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 22.09.2019. During

Xenok Limited, C/O Ernst and Young LLP Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-58, Mumbai

ITA 1996/MUM/2024[AY 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hiten ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Gaikwad

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234BSection 250

fact that the Appellant had erroneously offered the same income to tax twice on the grounds that the Appellant had failed to file a revised return for AY 2010-11, AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not granting the TDS credit ... INR.35,35,638/- on the basis that the Appellant has failed to file a revised return for AY 2010-11, AY 2011-12 and AY 2012- 13 despite knowing the fact that the time limit for revising the return of income had elapsed and hence the Appellant was prevented from

Choudhary Construction Co., Goregaon -W vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 31(1), Mumbai

ITA 4072/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Acit, Circle – 31(1) Ms. Choudhari Mumbai – 400020. Constructions Co. 151/129, Sidharth Nagar, Road No. 5, Behind Cinemax Cinema, S.V. Road, Goregoan (W), Mumbai – 400062. Pan/Gir No. Aabfc2689N (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

statement of additional income, thereby declaring of Rs. 70,00,00 was made voluntarily to buy peace and taxes were paid thereon and the revised return filed by the assessee was also accepted, therefore there was no occasion for the department to levy penalty. In this regard Ld. AR relied ... surface answer of the assessee was recorded. It is also not in dispute that additional income of Rs.70,00,000 was reflected in the revised return which was filed by the assessee on 25.02.2012 and paid the required amount of taxes. Therefore in this scenario penalty could not be imposed

Amit Kumar, Panipat Haryana vs. DCIT, NFAC (Delhi)

ITA 193/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

this regard, it comes up that the Assessee Entity i had claimed a TDS credit of INR 6,35,96,880 in its revised return of income. A copy of the ITR Acknowledgement evidencing the same is filed at page 47 of PB for Entity

Gujarat Council of Science City, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(Exemp), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1822/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 2(15)Section 250

Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19 was filed by the assessee on 29.09.2018 showing total income at Rs. Nil. Subsequently the assessee filed revised return on 04.10.2018 showing total income at Rs. Nil. The return was processed on 10.11.2019 under Section 143(1) of the Act on the total income