BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

29 results for “house property”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai303Delhi262Bangalore215Chennai78Jaipur58Kolkata44Hyderabad38Raipur35Chandigarh32Indore30Ahmedabad29Pune27Patna19Lucknow18Surat16Agra16Rajkot15Visakhapatnam12Cochin6Amritsar6Nagpur5Dehradun4Jodhpur3Cuttack3Jabalpur2Ranchi1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 26387Section 143(3)30Section 14723Revision u/s 26315Exemption14Addition to Income13Section 17(1)9Section 549Section 271(1)(c)9Section 54F

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed in above terms

ITA 759/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: \nShri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 12Section 147Section 263

revises such an assessment order, then it would\nimply extending/ granting fresh limitation for passing fresh assessment order. It is\nsettled law that by the action of the authorities the limitation cannot be extended,\nbecause the provisions of limitation are provided in the statute.”\nITA Nos.338, 339, 758 & 759/Ahd/2024\n[Mr. Arpanbhai Virambhai Desai

EFFECTIVE TELESERVICES PVT. LTD.,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the order passed under Section 263 of the Act is directed to be set-aside

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 1327
Search & Seizure7
ITA 410/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Malay Kalavadia & Shri ShalibhadraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Ground No. 3 - Disallowance of Standard Deduction u/s 24 of the Act amounting to INR 3,74,74,320 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned PCIT has erred in directing the learned AO to disallow standard deduction under Section

JITENDRA KUMAR SHIMPI,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 464/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

MAHENDRA AMBALAL ROHIT,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 465/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

IMTIYAZ KARIMBHAI VHORA,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 466/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

BHARATSINGH AMARSINGH RAJPUT,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 467/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

WILSON MIKHAEL TOPNO,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 468/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

SHRIKANTSINGH RAMDAYAL SHAKYA,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 469/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

ARBINDA KUMAR SINGH,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 471/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

ANKIT PRANLAL PATEL,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 470/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

MAFATBHAI BHIKHABHAI PARMAR,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by all the nine assessees is dismissed

ITA 463/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer 1[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] is erroneous

VIPUL KAMAL PRAKASH SUD,SIDHPUR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 841/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

u/s 143(3) rws 144B on 14.12.2022 so that it was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue which could be revised u/s.263 of the Act rw Explanation-2. 3.1 The Id. Pr. CIT has grievously erred in law and or on facts in holding that the provision of Explanation-2 to sec.263 was attracted in the facts

M/S.HDB FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1 , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 177/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80J

u/s. 143(2) dated 21.11.2019 filed by the assessee already reproduced in Paragraph 6 of this order. Thus both the ingredients i.e order must be erroneous in nature; and the error must be such that it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue are present in a given case, it is not legally permissible for a Commissioner to initiate

ARUNABEN KISHORKUMAR MANDALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1054/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, with Shri Vartik Choksi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

revised is erroneous, and; (ii) the order of the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interest of revenue; both have to be satisfied in order to invoke the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. If any of them is absent then the recourse cannot be taken to the provision of section 263 of the Act. We have to, therefore, examine whether

ARUNABEN KISHORKUMAR MANDALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1053/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, with Shri Vartik Choksi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

revised is erroneous, and; (ii) the order of the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interest of revenue; both have to be satisfied in order to invoke the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. If any of them is absent then the recourse cannot be taken to the provision of section 263 of the Act. We have to, therefore, examine whether

ARUNABEN KISHORKUMAR MANDALIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1052/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1052 To 1054/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-18 To 2020-21 Arunaben Kishorkumar Mandalia, The Principal बनामVs 12, Ashwamegh-Iii, Commissioner Of . 132 Feet Ring Road, Income Tax (Central), Satellite, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Ablpm2848Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ( ""यथ" /Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M K Patel, With Shri Vartik Choksi, Ars Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit.Dr

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, with Shri Vartik Choksi, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

revised is erroneous, and; (ii) the order of the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interest of revenue; both have to be satisfied in order to invoke the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. If any of them is absent then the recourse cannot be taken to the provision of section 263 of the Act. We have to, therefore, examine whether

MEENA RAJESH SANGHVI,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT (CENTRAL) , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1048/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

revising scrutiny assessment order merely because he held a different opinion than AO in the matter 6. Ld Pr CIT erred in law and on facts holding assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue since AO failed to make addition. 7. That PCIT has erred in not considering the submission made by appellant during the proceeding

VINEETSINGH GULABSINGH RORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 868/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 253(5)Section 263Section 69

263 of the Act can plead setting aside of the entire order passed by the ITA No.868/Ahd/2023 [Vineetsingh Gulabsingh Rore vs. PCIT] A.Y. 2017-18 - 12 – Ld. PCIT u/s.263 of the Act, resulting in no locus standi remaining with the AO to pass a consequential order. While in the appeal against the consequential order passed u/s.143

ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 914/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumarshri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri AP Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 28

House, Ahmedabad. Mithakhali Six Roads Ahmedabad-380009. [PAN No.AAFCA9521J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.R. Respondent by: Shri AP Singh, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 09.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 20.02.2025 O R D E R PER: DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Principal Commissioner

SEJALBEN PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Ms.Urvashi Sodhan, AR
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194Section 263Section 31Section 54

revision order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the PCIT under section 263, are such that for the Assessment Year 2018–19, it was found from the Insight Portal and ITBA system that the assessee had not filed her return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, despite having undertaken substantial high-value transactions during the relevant financial year. Based