← All Phrases

“revision under section 263”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 263558 judgments

RANJANA DEVI,MAUR MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), BATHINDA

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

ITA 410/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjana Devi, C/O Jishu Trading Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Co. Maur Mandi, Punjab. Bathinda. [Pan:-Alzpd4607L] (Appellant) (Respondent) None. Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr.

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

framed under section 143(3) vide order dated 13.11.2019 by accepting the returned income. 5. That subsequently the assessment was reopened for revision under section 263 of Income Tax Act vide order dated 15-03-2022 of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda with the direction to make de novo assessment ... framed under section 143(3) vide order dated 13.11.2019 by accepting the returned income. 14. That subsequently the assessment was reopened for revision under section 263 of Income Tax Act vide order dated 15-03-2022 of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda with the direction to make de novo assessment

SWD INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9012/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

bearing on the determination of the assessee’s income, thereby rendering the impugned proceedings void ab initio and not amenable to revision under Section 263 of the Act. 4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act without setting ... order has been passed under section 143(3) read with section 153A after obtaining approval of the competent authority, the same cannot be revised under section 263 without first dealing with the approval granted by the higher authority. 9. On the strength of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the AR submitted

SWD INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9011/MUM/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

bearing on the determination of the assessee’s income, thereby rendering the impugned proceedings void ab initio and not amenable to revision under Section 263 of the Act. 4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act without setting ... order has been passed under section 143(3) read with section 153A after obtaining approval of the competent authority, the same cannot be revised under section 263 without first dealing with the approval granted by the higher authority. 9. On the strength of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the AR submitted

SWD INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9010/MUM/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

bearing on the determination of the assessee’s income, thereby rendering the impugned proceedings void ab initio and not amenable to revision under Section 263 of the Act. 4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act without setting ... order has been passed under section 143(3) read with section 153A after obtaining approval of the competent authority, the same cannot be revised under section 263 without first dealing with the approval granted by the higher authority. 9. On the strength of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the AR submitted

SWD INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9009/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

bearing on the determination of the assessee’s income, thereby rendering the impugned proceedings void ab initio and not amenable to revision under Section 263 of the Act. 4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act without setting ... order has been passed under section 143(3) read with section 153A after obtaining approval of the competent authority, the same cannot be revised under section 263 without first dealing with the approval granted by the higher authority. 9. On the strength of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the AR submitted

SWD INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9008/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

bearing on the determination of the assessee’s income, thereby rendering the impugned proceedings void ab initio and not amenable to revision under Section 263 of the Act. 4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act without setting ... order has been passed under section 143(3) read with section 153A after obtaining approval of the competent authority, the same cannot be revised under section 263 without first dealing with the approval granted by the higher authority. 9. On the strength of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the AR submitted

SWD INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee for the respective assessment years are allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act are set aside

ITA 9007/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 9007/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2. Ita No. 9008/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) 3. Ita No. 9009/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) 4. Ita No. 9010/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) 5. Ita No. 9011/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. Ita No. 9012/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Swd Industries, Pcit (Central), 1402, South Tower 25, Mumbai-1, South Prabhadevi, Vs. R. No. 1001, 10Th Mumbai-400 025 Floor, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaofs8319L (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Kapoor A/W Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Shri Shivam Yadav, Shri Shri Vinod Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

bearing on the determination of the assessee’s income, thereby rendering the impugned proceedings void ab initio and not amenable to revision under Section 263 of the Act. 4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act without setting ... order has been passed under section 143(3) read with section 153A after obtaining approval of the competent authority, the same cannot be revised under section 263 without first dealing with the approval granted by the higher authority. 9. On the strength of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the AR submitted

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 188/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshishri Vimal Todi, Additional Commissioner बनाम/ 501, Darshan Residency, Of Income-Tax, Vs. 104-105, Anand Bazar, Indore Indore

Section 132Section 254(2)Section 271DSection 275Section 275(1)(c)

Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever is later; (b) in a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of revision under section 263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed ... Commissioner or Commissioner, whichever period expires later; (b) in a case, where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-matter of revision under section 263, after the expiry of six Page 26 of 33 Shri Vimal Todi ITA Nos. 188/Ind/2024 - AY 2012-13 months from

VEERESH WALI ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2413/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

unexplained money. 7. The AO observed that the issue relating to cash deposits had already been examined during the proceedings pursuant to the revision under section 263 of the Act. The assessee had furnished explanations in response to notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act along with supporting

PROGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 625/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.625/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Progressive Constructions The Dcit, Limited, Hyderabad. Circle-5(1) Vs. Pin – 500 001. Telangana. Hyderabad - 500 004. Pan Aabcp2274M Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ca Pawan Kumar Chakrapani िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By : & Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: And Sri Santi Pavan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 36(1)(vii)

provisions of sec.263 by issuing show cause notice dated 03.01.2025 reproduced in para-2 of the impugned order as under: “Sir/Madam, Sub: Revision under section 263 of the income tax Act, 1961 in your own case - AY 2021-22 - Show Cause Notice Regarding *** You have filed the return of income

DINESH VERMA,MANALI, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. ITO, ITO WARD KULLU

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 897/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinamar Gupta, C.A (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 263Section 270A

Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer had examined the matter and therefore the revision under section 263 was invalid. It was contended that the Principal Commissioner merely substituted his opinion for that of the Assessing Officer and no lack of enquiry

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1301/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

Commissioner\nor] Commissioner,\nwhichever is later.\n(b) n a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-\nmatter of revision under section 263, after the expiry of six months\nfrom the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed ... section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A\nor an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision\nunder section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing\nor reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the\nimposition of penalty

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1300/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

Commissioner or] Commissioner,\nwhichever is later.\n(b) n a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-\nmatter of revision under section 263, after the expiry of six months\nfrom the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed ... section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A\nor an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision\nunder section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing\nor reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the\nimposition of penalty

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 973/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

Commissioner\nor] Commissioner,\nwhichever is later.\n(b) n a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-\nmatter of revision under section 263, after the expiry of six months\nfrom the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed ... section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A\nor an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision\nunder section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing\nor reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the\nimposition of penalty

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

ITA 972/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2019-20
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 271D

Commissioner or] Commissioner,\nwhichever is later.\n(b) n a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject-\nmatter of revision under section 263, after the expiry of six months\nfrom the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed ... section 253 or an appeal to the High Court under section 260A\nor an appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 or revision\nunder section 263 or section 264 and an order imposing or enhancing\nor reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the\nimposition of penalty

SUNIL KUMAR BAHETI,SURAT vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 579/SRT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

documents, in the absence of any independent corroborative evidence establishing a nexus between the assessee and the alleged transaction, cannot by itself justify revision under section 263 of the Act. 8.1 As regards the issue of income from house property, the assessee had explained that one shop was used

VICKY NAVANI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR, WARD )), JABALPUR

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

ITA 124/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 44A

Court is received by the 77 [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or the 77 [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner or the order of revision under section 263 or section 264 is passed: I.T.A. No.124/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2016-17 9 Provided further that the provisions of sub-section (2) of section

JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 1907/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- D.RFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT- D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

treated as general in nature and not separately adjudicated. 9. In sum and substance, while at the assessment stage the Assessing Officer, after revision under section 263 of the Act, completed a best- judgment assessment and added the entire bank deposits of Rs.169.75 crores as unexplained money under section ... similarly made by applying presumptive percentages on bank credits and again no Jatinkumar Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2014-15 - 8– revision under section 263 had been invoked. For Assessment Year 2014- 15, however, the Assessing Officer had initially added only six per cent of the total credit entries, amounting

STUDDS ACCESSORIES LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3570/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalkra, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Avikal Manu, CIT DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80J

expenditure reported in the books of accounts and ITR (refer page 8 of the appeal set), thereby, failing to demonstrate how revision under section 263 of the Act was justified. d) In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions wherein it has been held that the Commissioner

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 780/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

well settled that failure to distinguish facts or to examine the binding effect of later statutory amendments constitutes an error amenable to revision under section 263. 46. The argument of “change of opinion” raised by the assessee is wholly untenable. For invoking the doctrine of change of opinion, there must

Showing 1–20 of 558 · Page 1 of 28

...