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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Section 263(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai811Delhi781Bangalore597Kolkata274Chennai273Ahmedabad121Karnataka108Jaipur87Hyderabad86Chandigarh82Raipur76Pune62Indore54Rajkot41Visakhapatnam40Lucknow38Cuttack34Dehradun30Surat28Patna26Agra21Cochin16Jodhpur12Amritsar11Nagpur11Guwahati8Ranchi8Jabalpur6Allahabad5Telangana5Varanasi3SC3Panaji1Punjab & Haryana1Calcutta1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 26319Section 14812Section 407Section 143(3)6TDS5Section 194C4Addition to Income3Revision u/s 2633Section 2502Section 1

M/S. RITHWIK RK JOINT VENTURE,HYDERABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 107/ALLD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 263

1, 2 & 9 to 12 are regarding validity of invoking of the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act and consequently the impugned revision order passed under section 263 is sought to be cancelled. The assessee is an Association of Person, formed as a special purpose vehicle (SPV) having two Joint Venture partners namely M/s Rithwik Projects Private

M/S RITHWIK RK JOINT VENTURE vs. PR. CIT, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

2
Reassessment2
Reopening of Assessment2
ITA 99/ALLD/2017[2012-2013]Status: Disposed
ITAT Allahabad
26 Jul 2022
AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR
Section 263

1, 2 & 9 to 12 are regarding validity of invoking of the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act and consequently the impugned revision order passed under section 263 is sought to be cancelled. The assessee is an Association of Person, formed as a special purpose vehicle (SPV) having two Joint Venture partners namely M/s Rithwik Projects Private

MAHAVIR PRASAD SATISH CHANDRA,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) , ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 69/ALLD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad15 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chanda, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

1- That in any view of the matter the assessment made on an income of Rs. 25,46,800/- by order dated 15-03-2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act is bad both on the facts and in law and income declared in the return should have been accepted. 2- That in any view

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

ITA 101/ALLD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

1,99,86,679/- on account of contractual receipt despite the fact that as per Rule 37BA the credit for TDS and paid to the Central Government shall be given for the assessment year for which such income is assessable, the assessee has failed to do so. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that after

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

ITA 99/ALLD/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

1,99,86,679/- on account of contractual receipt despite the fact that as per Rule 37BA the credit for TDS and paid to the Central Government shall be given for the assessment year for which such income is assessable, the assessee has failed to do so. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that after