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.

4 results for “TDS”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai443Delhi398Bangalore245Kolkata171Chennai171Chandigarh90Jaipur72Ahmedabad69Hyderabad67Pune56Visakhapatnam51Indore51Cochin41Raipur35Rajkot24Lucknow24Patna17Cuttack15Agra14Surat14Amritsar9Jodhpur6Karnataka6Nagpur5Guwahati4Jabalpur4Ranchi4Allahabad3Varanasi2Punjab & Haryana1Panaji1Telangana1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 2637Section 143(3)5Revision u/s 2633Section 452Section 482Section 263(1)2

SAURABH SINGHAI L/H LATE SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5/JAB/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Ble

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 263

263. A claim for restoring the matter back to his file for consideration, not made before us, could not be, even if made, therefore entertained. Further still, the assessee‟s case before us is principally the same as before the AO. Accordingly, not restoring it back for being considered by the revisionary authority, who has considered the assessee‟s case

M/S. VALLABH MARKET,GADARWARA vs. PR. CIT-1, , JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 12/JAB/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(1)

u/s 263 is bad in law. 4. The order passed by the Ld. PCIT be quashed. 4. We have heard both the parties, and perused the material on record. 5. The question before us is whether the assessment order dated 27-11-2018 by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, as agitated

SHRI VISHAL SETHI,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JABALPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 57/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45Section 48Section 50C

revision u/s. 263, and toward which reference was made to the following decisions: 2 | P a g e Vishal Sethi vs. ITO (A.Y.2014-15) (i) Akash Ganga Promoters and Developers vs. Pr. CIT (ITA No. 164/Ctk/2019, dated 18.12.2019) (ii) Sanjeev Kr. Khenka vs. Pr.CIT (ITA No.1361/Kol/2016, dated 2.6.2017) (iii) Su-Raj Diamond Dealers P. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT (ITA No. 3098/Mum/2019

SWETA GOENKA,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMR TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 44/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur17 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

263 order, and this issue is stated inasmuch as it reflects gross non-application of mind and, further, is related to the determination of income from the contract work executed by the assessee during the year. 3.2 Coming to the issue under consideration, i.e., the difference in the turnover reported by the Nagar Panchayats, as apparent, while the inconsistency observed