BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

35 results for “transfer pricing”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai219Delhi173Chennai79Bangalore54Kolkata38Ahmedabad35Rajkot34Hyderabad31Jaipur31Pune27Chandigarh23Visakhapatnam21Raipur20Surat20Agra19Indore17Lucknow12Nagpur11Cuttack9Cochin7Jodhpur4Amritsar3Dehradun2Patna1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 26393Section 143(3)41Addition to Income17Revision u/s 26314Exemption13Section 17(1)9Section 10(38)9Depreciation9Section 153C8Section 68

OVEZ ARIFBHAI LAKHANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 590/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Benches, Has Arisen From The Revisionary Order Dated 12.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Principal

For Appellant: Shri Bharat R. Popat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-D.R
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

revised by ld. PCIT and in any case the demat account was filed before the PCIT during revisionary proceedings. The assessee relied upon decision of ITAT in ITA no. 2586/Mum/2022, dated 02.03.2023 in the case of Karishma Ajay Agarwal v. ITO and also decision of ITAT in the case of ITO v. Shri Jimeet Vipul Modi in ITA No. 4297/Mum/2018

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

8
Disallowance8
Deduction7

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

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

u/s 263 of the Act was correct. In this context it will be relevant to ITA Nos. 466/Ahd/2023 (Imtiyaz Karimbhai Vhora vs. PCIT) & 8 Ors. A.Y.– 2018-19 - 10 – examine the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, which is reproduced below: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. 263. (1) The 99[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, -2,, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 909/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Madhya Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Sardar Patel Vidyut Bhavan, Income-Tax-2, Race Course, Vadodara-390007 Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 7439 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vadodara-2 [Herein-After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 27.03.2019, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “(1) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Cit Has Grievously Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act, Without Recording A Satisfaction As To How The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. (2) That On Facts & In Law, The Proceedings U/S.263 Are Void As The Original Assessment Order Was Passed U/S.143 (3) Of The Act After Due Inquiry & Application Of Mind / & Is Not Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 43B

revision u/s 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. Section 263 itself is very clearly worded as under: “263. (1) The [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

MEHAAN ENTERPRISE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 789/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri M S Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 68

U/S 263 of the Act. 7. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. PCIT. The Ld. DR submitted that the proceedings were initiated based on the (1) digital data seized and annexed as A/24 seized from the business premises of Reeva Corporation (PAN: AAUFR3518C), M/s. Rajyash M/s. Rajyash Buildcon (PAN : AATFR8334H), M/s. Rajyash Infraspace

M/S. GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result the order of the Ld

ITA 194/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35ASection 40A(3)

revision and lastly; vi. In the absence of invoking explanation (2) of Section 263 of the Act, the assessment order could not have been held to be erroneous and causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue on account of AO having not carried out any particular inquiry. Reference was made to several judicial decisions in support of the contentions

A MENARINI INDIA PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 877/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

Revision order, assessee is in appeal before us raising the following Grounds of Appeal: Your appellant being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad presents this appeal against the same on the following amongst other grounds: 1. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 has erred

PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE PR.CIT-2, BARODA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 911/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Principal Commissioner Of Paschim Gujarat Vij. Co. Ltd., Income-Tax-2, Off. Nana Mava Main Road, Vs. Vadodara Laxmi Nagar, Rajkot-360004 Pan : Aadcp 1453 C अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vadodara-2 [Herein-After Referred To As “Pcit”] Dated 27.03.2019, In Exercise Of His Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “(1) That On Facts & In Law, The Learned Cit Has Grievously Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S.263 Of The Act, Without Recording A Satisfaction As To How The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. (2) That On Facts & In Law, The Proceedings U/S.263 Are Void As The Original Assessment Order Was Passed U/S.143 (3) Of The Act After Due Inquiry & Application Of Mind / & Is Not Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

revision u/s 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. Section 263 itself is very clearly worded as under: “263. (1) The [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

JIGNASA ATULKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1140/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

u/s. 263 by Ld. PCIT when assessee’s appeal on the very same issue pending before Ld. CIT(A) which is raised as Ground No. 4 before us. 5.1. Explanation 1(c) to Sub-section (1) of Section 263 provides as follows: I.T.A No. 1140/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No 6 Jignasa Atulkumar Shah vs. PR.CIT “Revision of orders prejudicial

J vs. INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,VADODARAVS.THE PR. CIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 411/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43Section 49

revise the said order were initiated by PCIT. 4. After taking the submissions filed by the assessee on record, PCIT observed that the assessee company had recognised Goodwill of Rs.60.63 crores which represents the excess consideration paid for purchase of JVS Engineers. During the year under consideration, there was an addition of intangible assets amounting to Rs.34.10 crores. However

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

263 of the Act passed by the Ld. PCIT. ITA Nos.1052 to 1054/Ahd/2025 Asst. Years 2017-18 to 2020-21 7 8. From the digital images found and seized from the mobile phone of Shri Suresh R Thakkar, it transpired that he had brokered a deal for Shri Rajeshbhai Brahmbhatt and Smt. Arunaben Kishorkumar Zhaveri (the assessee) for sale

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

263 of the Act passed by the Ld. PCIT. ITA Nos.1052 to 1054/Ahd/2025 Asst. Years 2017-18 to 2020-21 7 8. From the digital images found and seized from the mobile phone of Shri Suresh R Thakkar, it transpired that he had brokered a deal for Shri Rajeshbhai Brahmbhatt and Smt. Arunaben Kishorkumar Zhaveri (the assessee) for sale

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

263 of the Act passed by the Ld. PCIT. ITA Nos.1052 to 1054/Ahd/2025 Asst. Years 2017-18 to 2020-21 7 8. From the digital images found and seized from the mobile phone of Shri Suresh R Thakkar, it transpired that he had brokered a deal for Shri Rajeshbhai Brahmbhatt and Smt. Arunaben Kishorkumar Zhaveri (the assessee) for sale