1. Introductory Framework
The Union Budget 2026 proposes several important amendments under the Income-tax Act, 1961. Among these, one of the most notable taxpayer-beneficial amendments relates to the Updated Return mechanism (ITR-U). This amendment is not merely aimed at simplifying the compliance framework, but also appears to be designed to reduce income-tax litigation and encourage voluntary tax correction. For the purposes of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the principal proposed changes are contained in Clause 5 (amendment to section 139(8A) ), Clause 6 (amendment to section 140B ), and Clause 14 (amendment to section 270A ). The significance of these proposals lies in the fact that they preserve the basic structure of the existing ITR-U regime while relaxing two important restrictions - first, the earlier inability to file ITR-U where the updated return continued to reflect a loss, and second, the bar on availing the ITR-U route after initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 148.
In this article, we discuss in detail the changes proposed in relation to ITR-U. In case of any query, clarification, or further discussion, you may contact us at the details mentioned at the end of the article.
2. Existing Legal Position Prior to Budget 2026
Ordinarily, an updated return could not be a return of loss , could not reduce the tax liability , and could not increase the refund . Further, the additional tax payable under the ITR-U mechanism was structured at 25% , 50% , 60% , and 70% of the aggregate of tax and interest, depending upon whether the updated return was filed in the first, second, third, or fourth year respectively. Thus, while the law provided a post-filing compliance window, it was still restrictive in cases involving loss correction or cases where reassessment proceedings had already commenced.
3. Amendment 1 - Reduction of Loss Through ITR-U
Earlier Position
Before Budget 2026, an updated return could not ordinarily operate as a return of loss. As a consequence, even if an assessee had originally filed a loss return and later discovered that the loss had been overstated, the ITR-U route was generally unavailable if the corrected computation still remained a loss return. In practical terms, correction was possible only where the revised computation turned into positive taxable income.
Proposed Position under Budget 2026
The Finance Bill, 2026 proposes to amend section 139(8A) so as to permit filing of an updated return even where such updated return has the effect of reducing the loss, provided that the original loss return had been furnished within the due date prescribed under section 139(1). In other words, the law now proposes to recognise that even a loss return may require correction, and such correction need not necessarily result in positive taxable income in order to be valid under the ITR-U framework.
Practical Effect
This is a significant relaxation, particularly in cases where business loss or capital loss was overstated in the original return. Under the proposed regime, a taxpayer who had filed a timely loss return would be able to regularise the correct quantum of carried-forward loss through ITR-U, even if the revised return still remains a loss return. However, this benefit is not general in nature; it is confined to cases where the original loss return was filed within the due date under section 139(1).
4. Amendment 2 - ITR-U Permitted After Issue of Notice Under Section 148
Earlier Position
Under the earlier regime, once reassessment proceedings had commenced, the ITR-U mechanism was generally not available. The Memorandum itself states that updated return was not permitted where assessment or reassessment proceedings were pending or had already been completed. Accordingly, once notice under section 148 had been issued and the reassessment machinery had been triggered, the assessee could no longer resort to the ITR-U route.
Proposed Position under Budget 2026
The Finance Bill, 2026 now proposes to insert a specific proviso in section 139(8A) enabling the assessee to furnish an updated return in pursuance of a notice under section 148, within the time specified in such notice. The proposed provision further states that, in such a case, the return in response to section 148 cannot be furnished in any other manner. Thus, the Bill creates a special statutory route under which the return filed in response to section 148 would itself be in the nature of an updated return.
Practical Effect
This is the most significant and litigation-oriented change in the proposed framework. Earlier, once reopening began, the ordinary ITR-U window was effectively shut. Under the proposed regime, the section 148 stage itself becomes a structured compliance opportunity. From the assessee’s perspective, this provides a formal mechanism to regularise income after reopening. From the Government’s perspective, it creates a settlement-oriented route intended to reduce reassessment litigation and secure quicker tax collection.
5. Amendment 3 - Extra 10% Levy Under Section 140B(3A) for Section 148-Based ITR-U
Earlier Position
Prior to the proposal, only the normal additional tax under the ITR-U mechanism applied, namely 25% , 50% , 60% , or 70% of the aggregate of tax and interest, depending upon the year in which the updated return was filed.
Proposed Position under Budget 2026
The Finance Bill, 2026 proposes insertion of section 140B(3A) , under which, where an updated return is filed in pursuance of a notice under section 148, the additional income-tax payable under section 140B shall be increased by a further 10% of the aggregate of tax and interest payable.
Practical Effect
The section 148-linked ITR-U route is therefore not a concession without cost. It carries the normal ITR-U additional tax burden plus a further 10%. On a combined reading of the existing structure and the proposed section 140B(3A), the effective additional tax burden would work out to 35% , 60% , 70% and 80% of the aggregate of tax and interest for years 1 to 4 respectively. Thus, while the proposal offers a compliance route even after reopening, it does so at a premium.
6. Penalty Protection Under Section 270A(11A)
Earlier Position
Before the proposed amendment, there was no special statutory protection under section 270A stating that income disclosed through a section 148-based updated return would be excluded from the penalty base.
Proposed Position under Budget 2026
The Finance Bill, 2026 proposes insertion of section 270A(11A) to provide that where additional income-tax is paid in accordance with section 140B(3A), the income on which such additional income-tax is paid shall not form the basis of imposition of penalty under section 270A.
Practical Effect
This is a major incentive built into the proposed scheme. It means that where the assessee adopts the post-section 148 ITR-U route and pays tax, interest, and the enhanced additional tax, the income so disclosed would not become the basis for penalty under section 270A. The benefit, however, appears to be specifically linked to cases falling within section 140B(3A), i.e., section 148-based ITR-U cases, and not necessarily every ordinary updated return.
7. Distinction Between ITR-U and Revised Return
Earlier Position
Even under the earlier law, revised return under section 139(5) and updated return under section 139(8A) operated in separate legal fields. A revised return was a correction mechanism within the normal return cycle, whereas ITR-U was a separate compliance window subject to statutory conditions and additional tax.
Proposed Position under Budget 2026
Budget 2026 separately proposes extension of the time limit for filing a revised return under section 139(5) up to 31 March of the relevant assessment year, subject to payment of fee. This proposal is distinct from the ITR-U changes. The amended revised return proposal should not be mixed up with the updated return proposal, because the two provisions continue to operate independently and with different consequences.
Practical Effect
This distinction is important because many discussions may conflate the two. Legally, however, an extended revised return window and an expanded updated return mechanism are separate reforms. One deals with correction within the return cycle; the other deals with post-return compliance under a special statutory framework.
8. Comparative Analysis / Practical Impact
Earlier Position
Under the earlier ITR-U regime:
- no ITR-U was permissible if the updated return remained a loss return;
- no ITR-U was permissible once reassessment proceedings had started;
- additional tax was restricted to the normal slab structure of 25% / 50% / 60% / 70%;
- no specific statutory penalty carve-out existed for income disclosed through a section 148-related updated return.
Proposed Position under Budget 2026
Under the proposed regime:
- ITR-U is proposed to be permitted where it reduces the loss, subject to timely original filing under section 139(1);
- ITR-U is proposed to be permitted even after issue of notice under section 148;
- such section 148-based ITR-U attracts a further 10% levy under section 140B(3A);
- the income covered by such payment would not form the basis of penalty under section 270A.
Practical Effect
From the taxpayer’s perspective, the proposal provides greater flexibility, especially in correcting overstated losses and in settling reassessment matters with reduced penalty exposure. From the Government’s perspective, the proposal supports quicker tax recovery, lower litigation, and more accurate tax reporting, while also yielding additional revenue through the enhanced levy. The principal trade-off for the Government is partial sacrifice of penalty leverage in order to promote faster and more efficient compliance.
9. Conclusion
Under the earlier law, the ITR-U mechanism was useful but narrow: it did not effectively permit correction of continuing loss returns, and it ceased to be available once reassessment proceedings had commenced. Budget 2026 proposes to materially widen this framework. It permits reduction of loss in specified cases, opens the ITR-U route even after issue of notice under section 148, imposes an additional 10% levy in such post-148 cases, and simultaneously grants protection from penalty base under section 270A for the income so disclosed. Viewed holistically, the proposal represents a calibrated shift from a restrictive updated return regime to a broader compliance-and-settlement model. The taxpayer gains flexibility and reduced penalty exposure, while the Government gains quicker realisation of revenue, lower litigation, and improved accuracy of reported tax positions.
The author can also be reached at varunmukeshgupta96@gmail.com
CAclubindia
