A corrigendum to Income-tax Return Form U has been issued, correcting the notified format of the return used to file an updated return. The form itself is a small thing; what it carries is not. ITR-U is the mechanism that lets a taxpayer go back and declare income they never declared — for a return filed wrongly, filed short, or never filed at all — long after every other deadline has closed. It buys you a window of up to 48 months from the end of the assessment year, but it charges for it: an additional tax of 25%, 50%, 60% or 70% of the tax and interest, rising the longer you wait. And it is deliberately one-directional — you can only increase your declared income. You cannot use it to claim a refund, to reduce income already declared, or to report a loss. This guide explains exactly how it works.
The corrigendum notified here amends the previously published format of Income-tax Return Form U — the return form through which an updated return is filed. A corrigendum is an ordinary piece of housekeeping: the department publishes a form, spots an error or an inconsistency in the printed schedule, and issues a correction so that the form as notified matches what the utility on the e-filing portal actually asks for. Nothing in a corrigendum of this kind changes your rights or your liability. But the form it corrects is one of the most consequential in the entire return-filing system, because it is the only door left open to a taxpayer who realises — after every normal deadline has closed — that the income they declared to the department was wrong, incomplete, or never declared at all. Most taxpayers have never heard of Form U until the day they need it, and by then the clock that governs it has usually been running for a while. That is why the practical value of this page is not in the corrigendum but in the return itself, and the rest of this guide is devoted to explaining, in full, how the updated return works.
ITR-U is an updated return of income. It is a return you file voluntarily, after the fact, to declare income that your original return did not carry — or, where you never filed a return in the first place, to put a return on record for a year that has long since passed. It was introduced into the law as a deliberate policy choice: the tax administration decided that it was better for both sides if a taxpayer who had under-reported could come forward and pay, rather than waiting to be caught by data-matching and then dragged through reassessment and penalty proceedings. The updated return is therefore best understood as a settlement mechanism dressed up as a return. You get finality and you avoid the machinery of enforcement; the department gets tax it would otherwise have had to chase. In exchange for that bargain, the law charges you an additional tax over and above the tax and interest that were always due — a price for the privilege of correcting yourself late and on your own terms. Under the Income-tax Act, 2025, the updated return carries forward the scheme that taxpayers knew as Section 139(8A) of the 1961 Act, with the same architecture: a long window, a one-directional correction, and an escalating charge.
To understand why the law offers this window, it helps to see the problem it solves. The department now receives an extraordinary volume of third-party information about every PAN: interest paid by banks, dividends by companies, securities transactions by depositories and brokers, property registrations by sub-registrars, high-value card and cash movements, foreign remittances, and TDS returns filed by every deductor in the country. All of this is collated into the Annual Information Statement and matched against what you declared. When the match fails, the system does not need a human to notice — it flags automatically. Before the updated return existed, the only route from that flag to a resolution was the enforcement route: a compliance communication, then a notice, then reassessment under Section 280 (the old Section 148), then an assessment order, then penalty, then appeal. That route is slow, expensive and adversarial for the taxpayer and resource-hungry for the department. The updated return short-circuits it. A taxpayer who sees the mismatch — or simply remembers the income they forgot — can pay the tax with the additional charge and close the matter, without any officer opening a file. It is, in a real sense, a piece of administrative efficiency offered to the public as a second chance, and taxpayers who use it well are usually the ones who check their own AIS before the department does.
The eligibility rule is broad and simple: any person can file an updated return for a given assessment year, and the position of the original return barely matters. You can file an updated return if you filed an original return and it understated your income. You can file one if you filed a belated return and it was still wrong. You can file one if you already filed a revised return and the revision was itself incomplete. And — importantly, because this is the case people most often assume is hopeless — you can file one if you never filed any return at all for that year, even though the belated deadline passed long ago. The updated return does not require a prior return to attach itself to. Individuals, Hindu undivided families, firms, LLPs, companies and every other class of taxpayer are covered. The eligibility question, in practice, is almost never "am I the sort of person who can file this" — it is "does what I want to do fall inside the narrow set of corrections the law permits", and that is where most would-be filers actually fail.
The updated return is deliberately hemmed in, because it was never meant to be a general-purpose amendment facility. The most important restriction is that it may only be used to increase your declared income and your tax. Specifically, you cannot file an updated return if it would be a return of loss; if it would reduce your total tax liability as determined on the basis of the earlier return; or if it would result in a refund, or increase a refund already claimed. That single set of conditions eliminates most of the reasons a taxpayer instinctively wants to reopen an old year. If you forgot to claim a deduction, forgot to claim TDS credit, or realise you overpaid, the updated return is closed to you — the law simply does not provide a late route to get money back. The updated return is a one-way street running towards the exchequer.
Beyond that, the door shuts entirely when enforcement has already begun. You cannot file an updated return for a year in which a search has been initiated against you, a survey has been conducted, or books, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles have been requisitioned or seized — and, in the case of a search or requisition, the bar typically extends to a block of surrounding years, not just the one in question. You cannot file if an assessment, reassessment, revision or re-computation for that year is pending or has been completed. You cannot file if the department is already in possession of information about you under specified statutes — the money-laundering, black-money, benami-property and related laws — and that information has been communicated to you. And you may file only one updated return for a given assessment year: it is a single shot, not a facility you can keep returning to as more forgotten income surfaces. Between these two clusters of restrictions, the practical rule of thumb is this — the updated return is available to the taxpayer who comes forward before the department acts, to declare more income, and only once.
The updated return may be filed within 48 months from the end of the relevant assessment year. That is a long window by the standards of Indian tax law, and it is the single most generous feature of the scheme. To see how much time it actually gives you, work through the arithmetic for a concrete year. For income earned in the financial year 2021-22, the assessment year is 2022-23, which ends on 31 March 2023; the 48-month window therefore runs to 31 March 2027. That is nearly five years after the income was earned, and roughly four and a half years after the original due date for filing. Compare that with the ordinary deadlines — a revised or belated return for the same year had to be in by the end of the following December, a matter of nine months after the year ended — and the scale of the extension becomes obvious. The window was lengthened to 48 months by amendment; earlier it was 24 months, and taxpayers who read older material sometimes assume they are out of time when in fact they still have years left. Always compute the window from the end of the assessment year, not from the end of the financial year, and not from the original filing due date: getting that starting point wrong by twelve months is the most common error people make when assessing whether they can still file.
One qualification applies at the far end of the window. Where the department has already begun the process of reopening the year — specifically, where a show-cause communication preceding reassessment has been issued to you after the thirty-sixth month — the last twelve months of the window are ordinarily not available to you, because the case has moved from voluntary disclosure into enforcement. The exception is where the officer has passed an order concluding that yours is not a fit case for reopening, in which case the window reopens. The design logic is consistent throughout: the updated return rewards the taxpayer who moves first, and withdraws as soon as the department has moved.
The distinguishing feature of the updated return is the additional tax. It is not a penalty in the technical sense — it is not levied by an officer, it carries no proceedings, and it is not appealable — but it functions economically as one. It is computed as a percentage of the aggregate of the tax and interest payable on the additional income you are declaring, and the percentage escalates with time. The schedule, measured from the end of the relevant assessment year, is:
The escalation is the whole design. The law is not indifferent to when you come forward; it prices promptness explicitly, and the price roughly triples between the first year and the fourth. The practical consequence, which is worth stating plainly because so many taxpayers miss it, is that a decision to "think about it for a few months" can be an expensive decision. A taxpayer sitting in month eleven of the window who defers to month thirteen has just doubled the additional tax on the whole disclosure, and one who drifts from month thirty-five to month thirty-seven adds another ten percentage points. If you have concluded that you owe the money, the arithmetic of the schedule says to file now rather than after one more conversation. The additional tax also compounds with the interest it is computed on, because interest itself keeps accruing month by month — so the total cost of waiting grows on two axes at once, not one.
Working out the payment on an updated return is a four-stage computation, and doing the stages in the wrong order is the most common source of error. First, recompute your total income for the year including the previously undeclared item, and work out the tax on that recomputed total under the regime and slabs applicable to that year — not the current year's rates. Rebates such as the one under Section 156 (the old Section 87A) are applied here if they are still available at the higher income, and surcharge and cess are added on top. Second, subtract everything already credited to you for that year: TDS shown in your Form 26AS and AIS, TCS, advance tax, self-assessment tax, any foreign tax credit, and any tax already paid on the original return. What remains is the net tax genuinely still due. Third, compute the interest on that shortfall — principally the interest for default in payment of advance tax and for deferment of instalments under Sections 424 and 425 (the old Sections 234B and 234C), and, where no return was filed by the due date, the interest for late filing as well. Interest runs from the original due dates, not from today, so on an old year it can be substantial in its own right — on a four-year-old disclosure the interest alone can approach a third of the tax. Fourth and last, take the aggregate of the net tax and the interest, and apply the 25/50/60/70 percentage for the slot you are filing in. That product is the additional tax. Your total payment is net tax plus interest plus additional tax, and it must be paid in full before you file — an updated return submitted without the money behind it is treated as defective, and the proof of payment is part of the return.
Take a salaried taxpayer in the 30% bracket who filed an accurate return for the assessment year 2025-26 but overlooked ₹4,00,000 of fixed-deposit interest across three bank accounts — a very common omission, because the interest is credited quietly and the bank's TDS certificate never reaches the taxpayer's desk. The tax on that additional ₹4,00,000 at 30% is ₹1,20,000, plus 4% cess, giving ₹1,24,800. The banks had already deducted TDS at 10%, or ₹40,000, which is credited against it, leaving a net tax shortfall of ₹84,800. Interest under Sections 424 and 425 on that shortfall, computed from the original due dates, comes to roughly ₹15,000. The aggregate of tax and interest is therefore about ₹99,800.
Now the timing decides the rest. If this taxpayer files the updated return within 12 months of the end of the assessment year, the additional tax is 25% of ₹99,800, or ₹24,950, and the total cheque is about ₹1,24,750. If instead the same taxpayer files in the thirtieth month, the additional tax jumps to 60%, or ₹59,880, and the total becomes roughly ₹1,59,680 — and that is before accounting for the extra interest that has accrued in the intervening eighteen months. The same forgotten interest, the same disclosure, the same taxpayer: ₹35,000 more, purely for the delay. This is the single most instructive figure in the whole scheme, and it is why the right response to discovering an omission is to compute and file, not to wait and see whether anyone notices.
Consider a freelance consultant who earned about ₹12,00,000 in a financial year, had roughly ₹40,000 of TDS deducted by her clients under the professional-fees provisions, and simply never filed a return for that year — she was between accountants, the deadline passed, and the year receded. Two and a half years later she wants to regularise it, partly because a bank has asked for three years of returns for a loan. Her tax on ₹12,00,000, after the applicable deductions and slabs for that year and including cess, works out to about ₹1,00,000. Against that she has the ₹40,000 of TDS credit, leaving ₹60,000 of net tax. Interest under Sections 424 and 425, plus the interest for filing late, adds roughly ₹18,000, giving an aggregate of ₹78,000. Because she is filing in the 26th month, the 60% slab applies, so the additional tax is ₹46,800, and her total payment is about ₹1,24,800.
That number looks painful next to a ₹60,000 tax bill, and it is. But the comparison that matters is not against the tax she would have paid on time — that ship sailed — but against what happens if she does nothing. A non-filer with visible TDS in the system is precisely the profile the department's matching flags first, because the deductor has already reported the payment. If the year is reopened under Section 280 (the old Section 148), she faces the same tax and the same interest, plus a penalty for under-reported or mis-reported income that can run to a substantial multiple of the additional tax here, plus the time and cost of the proceedings themselves, plus the loss of the clean compliance record the bank is asking for. Measured against that, ₹1,24,800 paid voluntarily to close the year is a good outcome, and she also walks away with a filed return she can actually show the bank.
A third pattern worth working through is the one that catches investors. Suppose a taxpayer sold listed shares and realised ₹6,00,000 of long-term capital gain, and left it out of the return on the mistaken belief — extremely widespread — that gains on listed shares are exempt because they were once treated favourably, or because the broker had already deducted something. After the annual exemption of ₹1,25,000, the taxable gain is ₹4,75,000, taxed at 12.5%, giving ₹59,375, plus cess, or about ₹61,750. No TDS was deducted, so the whole amount is a shortfall. Interest of roughly ₹9,000 brings the aggregate to about ₹70,750. Filed in the eighteenth month, the 50% slab applies: additional tax of about ₹35,375, and a total payment of roughly ₹1,06,125.
What makes this example instructive is the visibility of the underlying transaction. Securities transactions are reported to the department by the depositories and the brokers, and they appear in the taxpayer's own AIS in considerable detail — scrip, quantity, date, value. There is essentially no scenario in which a share sale of this size stays invisible. A taxpayer in this position is not choosing between disclosure and secrecy; they are choosing between disclosing now at 50% and being asked about it later at a much higher total cost. Once you internalise that the data is already sitting in the department's system, the updated return stops looking like a confession and starts looking like the cheaper of two certainties.
It is worth isolating the effect of timing on its own, holding everything else constant. Take a clean case where the tax and interest together come to ₹1,00,000. Filed inside the first twelve months, the additional tax is ₹25,000. Filed in the second year, ₹50,000. In the third, ₹60,000. In the fourth, ₹70,000. The same disclosure of the same income by the same person costs ₹45,000 more at the far end of the window than at the near end — a difference of 45% of the underlying liability, created by nothing but the passage of time. And because interest continues to accrue on the shortfall throughout, the real gap between filing early and filing late is wider than these figures alone suggest: the percentage rises and the base it applies to rises with it. If there is one operational takeaway from this entire guide, it is that the updated return rewards speed more sharply than almost any other provision in the Act, and that the correct sequence when you discover an omission is compute, pay, file — in that order and without a gap.
Taxpayers routinely confuse these three, and choosing the wrong one wastes the option that would actually have worked. A belated return is an original return filed after the due date — you never filed on time, so you file late, within the belated window, which closes at the end of the December following the financial year. It is a full, ordinary return: you can declare any income, claim any deduction, report a loss (though with restrictions on carrying it forward), and claim a refund. A revised return is a correction to a return you already filed, available within the same window. It too is unrestricted in direction — you can revise upwards or downwards, correct a mistake in your favour, add a deduction you forgot, and claim a refund that results. Both are cheap: no additional tax attaches to either, only whatever interest is due.
The updated return is a different animal entirely. It opens only after those windows have closed and runs for 48 months from the end of the assessment year. It is one-directional — it can only increase income and tax. It cannot produce or increase a refund, cannot report a loss, and cannot reduce a liability already declared. It costs 25% to 70% extra on the tax and interest. And it may be used only once per assessment year. The practical hierarchy that follows is straightforward and worth memorising: if the revised or belated window is still open, always use it — it is unrestricted and free. Only when both have closed does the updated return come into play, and by then you have given up the ability to correct anything in your own favour. This is precisely why so many taxpayers who discover an error in, say, November of the following year should stop reading about ITR-U and simply file a revised return that week instead.
The mechanics are less complicated than the eligibility analysis. Confirm eligibility first: check that no search, survey, requisition, assessment, reassessment or revision proceeding touches the year, that you have not already filed an updated return for it, that you are inside the 48-month window, and — critically — that your correction increases tax rather than producing a refund. Reconstruct the year next: pull the Form 26AS, AIS and TIS for that assessment year from the e-filing portal, together with bank statements, broker statements and any documents supporting the income you are adding, so that the return you file reconciles with what the department already sees. Filing an updated return that still does not match the AIS is a wasted opportunity, because the mismatch that triggered your attention remains live.
Compute the liability in the four stages described earlier — recomputed tax, less existing credits, plus interest, plus the applicable percentage of additional tax. Pay the whole amount as self-assessment tax for that assessment year through the e-payment facility, and keep the challan, since its details go into the return. Then prepare the return itself: you file the appropriate ITR form for your income profile for that year, accompanied by the Form U schedule, in which you state the reason for updating — return not previously filed, income not reported correctly, wrong heads of income, reduction of carried-forward loss or credit, wrong rate of tax, or the other specified grounds — and set out the computation of the additional tax. Submit and verify within the prescribed period, using Aadhaar OTP, net banking, DSC or the other available modes; an unverified return is not a filed return, and a lapse here is a genuinely painful way to lose a one-shot opportunity. Finally, keep the file: the challan, the computation, the acknowledgement and the supporting documents, because they are what you will produce if the year is ever queried later.
It is easier to judge whether the updated return is your remedy if you can see the shapes of the problems it was built for. The commonest by a wide margin is income you simply forgot: interest on fixed and recurring deposits across multiple banks, interest on a savings account beyond the deductible amount, dividends that used to be exempt in the shareholder's hands and no longer are, rent from a second property collected in cash, and freelance or consulting receipts from a client who deducted TDS you never tracked. The second common shape is capital gains left out — shares, mutual-fund redemptions, and above all property sales, where the taxpayer either believed the transaction was outside the net or reinvested the proceeds and assumed that removed the need to report anything.
A third is figures reported wrongly rather than omitted: income placed under the wrong head, a deduction claimed that the taxpayer was not entitled to, an exemption applied too broadly, or tax computed at the wrong rate. A fourth is the year never filed at all, which the updated return uniquely rescues since no other route exists once the belated window has shut. And a fifth, less obvious but explicitly contemplated, is the case where a carried-forward loss, unabsorbed depreciation or tax credit was overstated in an earlier year and needs to be reduced — a correction that increases liability in the later years that relied on it. What unites all five is direction: each of them, properly corrected, means the taxpayer owes more. Any correction that would mean the taxpayer owes less falls outside the scheme entirely, no matter how genuine the error.
Many taxpayers first learn that something is wrong when a compliance communication arrives — an email or an on-portal message saying that information has been received about a transaction that does not appear to be reflected in the return, and inviting a response or a revised or updated filing. It is easy to dismiss these as automated noise, and many people do. That is a mistake, because the communication is not the enforcement step; it is the courtesy that precedes it, and it is also the last point at which the cheap options are still on the table. Ignoring it does not make the underlying data go away, since the data came from a third party and sits permanently in the department's system.
What follows, if you stay silent, is the machinery. The case moves towards reassessment under Section 280 (the old Section 148), preceded by a show-cause process in which you are asked why the year should not be reopened. Once that process has started past the relevant point, your access to the updated return closes — the voluntary window is withdrawn precisely because the department has now acted. From there the year is assessed under Section 270 (the old Section 143), or, if you do not participate at all, determined to the best of the officer's judgement under Section 271 (the old Section 144), which is rarely a generous exercise. On top of the tax and the interest under Sections 424 and 425, a penalty for under-reported or mis-reported income becomes exigible, and where the department takes the view that the omission was deliberate, mis-reporting attracts a substantially heavier penalty than mere under-reporting. In the most serious cases the law also provides for prosecution for wilful attempt to evade tax. The whole chain then consumes years of correspondence, hearings and possibly appeals. Set against that, the additional tax on an updated return — even at the 70% slab — is usually the cheapest exit available, and it is an exit that disappears the moment you let the notice sit.
One category deserves separate treatment, because the consequences of getting it wrong are of a different order entirely. A resident and ordinarily resident taxpayer is taxable in India on their worldwide income, and residence is determined under Section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 — a question of day-counts, not of citizenship, passports or where you feel you live. A great many people who have returned to India after years abroad, or who work overseas on rotations, do not appreciate that they have become residents for tax purposes and that their foreign salary, foreign bank interest, foreign dividends, brokerage account gains, employer stock and rental income abroad are now Indian-taxable. Separately, and independently of whether any income arises, a resident must disclose foreign assets and foreign bank accounts in the return schedules provided for the purpose. The disclosure obligation is not conditional on income; an idle overseas account with a nil balance still belongs in the schedule.
Non-disclosure here is not merely an income-tax problem. Undisclosed foreign income and foreign assets fall within the black-money law, which operates alongside the Income-tax Act and carries penalties that can be a multiple of the value of the asset, together with rigorous criminal provisions — a regime deliberately far harsher than ordinary under-reporting. And the assumption that foreign accounts are invisible is now simply false: India receives account-level data automatically from a large number of jurisdictions under global information-exchange arrangements, and that data is matched against returns in the same way domestic data is. A taxpayer who has left foreign income or a foreign account out of past returns is therefore in the most urgent version of the situation this guide describes. The updated return is available for the income side while the window is open and before any proceeding begins — but the interaction with the black-money regime is genuinely intricate, the restriction barring an updated return where information under those specified statutes has already been communicated to you can bite, and the downside of a misjudgement is severe. This is the one scenario in this guide where the honest advice is not to self-file, but to take professional advice before you touch anything.
A handful of recurring errors account for most of the trouble taxpayers have with updated returns. The first is miscounting the window — computing 48 months from the end of the financial year, or from the filing due date, rather than from the end of the assessment year, and concluding wrongly that the door has shut. The second is filing when a revised return was still available, and paying 25% additional tax for something that would have cost nothing, which is why the very first question should always be whether the ordinary windows are still open. The third is attempting a refund — taxpayers regularly try to use the updated return to claim TDS credit they missed, and the return is simply not capable of it. The fourth is using up the one shot too early: because only one updated return is permitted per assessment year, filing before you have reconciled the whole year against the AIS means that any further omission you discover afterwards has no remedy at all. Reconcile everything first, then file once. The fifth is filing without paying, which leaves the return defective. And the sixth is forgetting to verify, which leaves it un-filed. Each of these is entirely avoidable with a slow first pass over the year.
Bringing it together, the decision reduces to a short sequence of questions. Is the revised or belated window still open for the year? If yes, use it — it is free and unrestricted, and nothing else in this guide applies. If no, does your correction increase your income and tax? If it would produce or increase a refund, reduce declared income, or report a loss, the updated return is unavailable and you need different advice. If it does increase tax, is the year clean of proceedings — no search, survey, requisition, assessment, reassessment or revision, and no prior updated return? If so, you are eligible, and the only remaining question is timing, which is really a question of cost: every month you wait moves you closer to the next percentage band, and every month adds interest to the base that percentage applies to. Compute the total under the band you are in now, compare it against the band you will fall into if you delay, and compare both against the realistic cost of the enforcement route if you do nothing — tax, interest, penalty for under-reporting or mis-reporting, and years of proceedings. In the overwhelming majority of cases where the income is genuinely taxable and genuinely visible in the department's data, that comparison settles the matter in favour of filing promptly. The updated return is not a pleasant provision to use, but it exists precisely so that an honest mistake or a period of neglect does not have to become a decade of litigation, and using it early is always cheaper than using it late.
ITR-U is an updated return, filed voluntarily to declare income that an earlier return did not carry — or to file for a year in which no return was ever filed. It suits anyone who has discovered missed income, wrong figures or an unfiled year after the revised and belated windows have closed, and who is willing to pay the tax, interest and additional tax to close the year before the department opens it.
Up to 48 months from the end of the relevant assessment year. For income of FY 2021-22 (AY 2022-23), which ended on 31 March 2023, the window runs to 31 March 2027. Count from the end of the assessment year, not the financial year — that single mistake makes many taxpayers believe they are out of time when they still have a year or more left.
A percentage of the aggregate of the tax and interest due on the additional income: 25% if filed within 12 months of the end of the assessment year, 50% within 24 months, 60% within 36 months and 70% within 48 months. On ₹1,00,000 of tax and interest, that is ₹25,000 at the earliest point and ₹70,000 at the latest — the strongest argument in the scheme for filing quickly.
No. An updated return cannot result in a refund, increase an existing refund, reduce the tax liability declared earlier, or be a return of loss. It only works in one direction — increasing income and tax. If your correction is in your own favour, the updated return is not the remedy, and you would need to look at whether any other route remains open for that year.
A revised return corrects a filed return within the ordinary window that closes at the end of the December following the financial year, it can move your income in either direction, it can produce a refund and it costs nothing extra. An updated return only opens after that window has closed, runs for 48 months, can only increase tax, cannot yield a refund, carries 25–70% additional tax, and may be filed only once per assessment year. If the revised window is still open, always use it instead.
Yes. This is one of the situations the updated return specifically rescues. You do not need a prior original, belated or revised return for the year — you can put a return on record for the first time, well after the belated deadline has passed, provided you are within the 48-month window, the year is free of search, survey, assessment or reassessment proceedings, and the return results in tax payable rather than a refund.
The information does not disappear, because it came from a third party and remains in the department's system. The case moves towards reassessment under Section 280 (old 148); once that process begins, your access to the updated return closes. The year is then assessed under Section 270 (old 143), or determined to the best of the officer's judgement under Section 271 (old 144), with interest under Sections 424 and 425 and a penalty for under-reported or mis-reported income on top — and prosecution in the most serious cases.
No. Only one updated return is permitted per assessment year. This is why you should reconcile the entire year against your Form 26AS, AIS and TIS before filing — if you file to fix one omission and then discover a second, there is no second bite, and the remaining error can only be dealt with through the enforcement route.
We check whether ITR-U is open to you, compute the tax, interest and additional tax exactly, and file the updated return before the percentage steps up.
💬 Check my ITR-U options
EaseValue