← All Phrases

“revision u/s 264”

Rectification & RevisionSection 264Section 26411 judgments

JATIN DHANSUKH KHATRI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 42(2)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 8978/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethjatin Dhansukh Khatri, Vs. Ito Ward-42(2)(3), J/204 Raj Gulmohar Bldg Kautilya Bhavan, No.1 Near St. Xavier Mumbai-400051. School Unitech Westend Virar (West) Thane-401303. Pan/Gir No: Ahgpk2461A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 250Section 264

Karnataka High Court in case of Nataraju (HUF) vs PCIT (91 ITA No.8978/MUM/2025/AY 2013-14 Jatin Dhansukh Khatri taxmann.com 467) which held that revision u/s 264 of the Act cannot be treated as regular remedy bypassing regular remedy of appeals. The PCIT, therefore, rejected the revision petition. In view ... PCIT referred to the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of Nataraju (HUF) (supra), where it was held that revision u/s 264 of the Act cannot be treated as regular remedy bypassing regular remedy of appeals. Subsequently, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 28.03.2021, which

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1115/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 271Section 44A

that since the CIT (A)\nhad dismissed the appeal as “not seriously pursued” rather than on merits, there might\nbe scope for filing revision u/s 264 before the PCIT.\n6. That since our counsel Advocate Dinesh Sharma was not properly responding about\nthe rate of our case, we approached

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1114/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Somani, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 270A(1)Section 271Section 44A

that since the CIT (A) had dismissed the appeal as “not seriously pursued” rather than on merits, there might be scope for filing revision u/s 264 before the PCIT. 6. That since our counsel Advocate Dinesh Sharma was not properly responding about the rate of our case, we approached

ARUSUVAI FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 264Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 270A(9)(c)Section 271Section 41(1)

first round] had made endorsement to initiate penalty, therefore, the non-recording of satisfaction in the second round assessment (post-revision u/s 264), will not vitiate the penalty levied u/s 270A, we don’t agree and note in this regard that the AO has recorded in the first round assessment

MADISON TEAMWORKS FILM PROMOTIONS AND ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 10(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3534/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 246ASection 250Section 264Section 264(4)Section 40A(3)

264 of the IT Act for AY 2013-14 and also examined the submission made by assessee company. It is stated that the revision u/s 264 of the IT Act is not an alternative to appeal and it is only when the channel of appeal is not available that ... interests of the assessee due to developments brought on record by the assessee and fell within the jurisdiction, scope and meaning of revision u/s 264 of the I.T.Act. However, the Ld. PCIT dismissed the revision application of MATES (appellant), stating that the reason provided for delay is not acceptable

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENAI vs. C.VIJAYA BASKAR, PUDUKOTTAI

ITA 702/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for
Section 143(3)

which was also rejected on \n24.12.2020 for the same reason. For AY 2015-16, the assessee \npreferred application for revision u/s 264 wherein the assessment framed \non 27.12.2019 was set aside and Ld. AO was directed to pass fresh \nassessment order after providing copies of seized material to the \nassessee

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENAI vs. C.VIJAYA BASKAR, PUDUKOTTAI

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 700/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for department)- Ld. Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)

which was also rejected on 24.12.2020 for the same reason. For AY 2015-16, the assessee preferred application for revision u/s 264 wherein the assessment framed on 27.12.2019 was set aside and Ld. AO was directed to pass fresh assessment order after providing copies of seized material to the assessee

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENAI vs. C.VIJAYA BASKAR, PUDUKOTTAI

ITA 698/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for
Section 143(3)

which was also rejected on \n24.12.2020 for the same reason. For AY 2015-16, the assessee \npreferred application for revision u/s 264 wherein the assessment framed \non 27.12.2019 was set aside and Ld. AO was directed to pass fresh \nassessment order after providing copies of seized material to the \nassessee ... which was also rejected on \n24.12.2020 for the same reason. For AY 2015-16, the assessee \npreferred application for revision u/s 264 wherein the assessment framed \non 27.12.2019 was set aside and Ld. AO was directed to pass fresh \nassessment order after providing copies of seized material to the \nassessee

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENAI vs. C.VIJAYA BASKAR, PUDUKOTTAI

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 697/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for department)- Ld. Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)

which was also rejected on 24.12.2020 for the same reason. For AY 2015-16, the assessee preferred application for revision u/s 264 wherein the assessment framed on 27.12.2019 was set aside and Ld. AO was directed to pass fresh assessment order after providing copies of seized material to the assessee

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENAI vs. C.VIJAYA BASKAR, PUDUKOTTAI

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 695/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for
Section 143(3)

which was also rejected on \n24.12.2020 for the same reason. For AY 2015-16, the assessee \npreferred application for revision u/s 264 wherein the assessment framed \non 27.12.2019 was set aside and Ld. AO was directed to pass fresh \nassessment order after providing copies of seized material to the \nassessee

AMAR NATH,GURUGRAM vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), GURGAON

ITA 74/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 133ASection 143Section 156Section 270Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(9)Section 69A

available to the first appellate authority. In fact Sub section (6) of Section 270AA provides at no appeal u/s 246A or no revision u/s 264 of the Act will be entertained by Ld. CIT(A) or by Ld. CIT against the assessment order, which has been subject matter of proceedings