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.

8 results for “disallowance”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,460Delhi793Kolkata619Chennai459Bangalore429Ahmedabad235Pune163Jaipur156Hyderabad131Chandigarh125Rajkot113Indore112Surat104Raipur61Panaji43Cochin43Visakhapatnam42Cuttack37Nagpur36Lucknow34Karnataka27Agra25Jodhpur21Allahabad20Amritsar17Patna11Jabalpur8Dehradun7Telangana4Kerala3Guwahati3Ranchi3Calcutta2Varanasi2SC1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 26341Section 143(3)13Section 80P(2)(d)5Section 80P(2)(a)5Addition to Income5Revision u/s 2635Section 263(1)3Natural Justice3Section 2502Section 80P

NARESH KUMAR GOLCHHA OFFICER ,KATNI vs. INCOME TAX WARD.1 , KATNI

ITA 41/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Naresh Kumar Golchha, Vs Ito, C/O-Samapat Lal & Sons, Ward-1, Raghunath Ganj, Katnia, Katni (M.P) Madhya Pradesh-483501. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Afhpg3398F Assessee By Shri H.S.Modh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54F

revision order U/s 263 of IT Act, 1961, was cancelled by the Hon'ble ITAT, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur, in appeal ITA No. 90/Jab/2018 vide order dated 03/04/2019. Shri Naresh KuamrGolchha vs ITO 2. That the addition of Rs. 39,29,800/- confirm treating that the Hon'ble ITAT has set-aside and cancelled the order U/s 263

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

2
Section 682
Deduction2

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

disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia). Sh. Ghai would before us further add that s. 194C(7) is even otherwise independent of s. 194C(6). 5.3 The same, however, did not find acceptance by the ld. Pr. CIT; the operative part of the impugned order reading as under: „5. The assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 194C

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

JILA SAHKARI KENDRIYA BANK KARAMCHARI SAKH SAHKARI SAMITI,SATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, KATNI

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

ITA 102/JAB/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadalejila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Vs National E Karamchari Sakh Sahkari Assessment Samiti Maryadit Satna, Center, Income Tax Sahkar Bhawan, Behind Department, New Green Talkies, Pushpraj Delhi Colony, Satna (M.P)-485001. Acit, Katni (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabaj4497Q Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80p

revised its computation of profit of Rs.10,26,079/- and claimed deduction of Rs.8,41,969/- u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and deduction of Rs.1,84,110/- u/s 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The AO allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act however, denied the deduction u/s

M/S AMBAJEE JEWELLERS JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JABALPUR-1,, JABALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 21/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

For Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

263 order viz that AO order was passed under section 144 and further erred in mentioning that assessee has produced partial purchase bills only during assessment proceeding 12. The revision order dated 19/01/2022 is bad in law for other reasons also hence may kindly be cancelled. 13. The assessee craves the leave to add or amend any ground of appeal

KOHINOOR TOBACCO PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 48/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2018-19 Kohinoor Tobacco Products Private Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Limited, 903, M.H. House, Gole Bazar, Tax, Jabalpur-1 Jabalpur, M.P. Pan:Aabck7797E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

u/s 263 of the Act and hence, the same kindly quashed." 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr.CIT has erred both on facts and in law in ignoring the fact that the proceeding under Section 263 cannot be used for substituting opinion of the A.O. by that of the PCIT. 7. On and the facts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR vs. SHAKTI MAHILA SANGH BAHU-UDDESHIYA SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT, MAJHOLI

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 119/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y.-2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Vs Shakti Mahila Sangh Bahu-Uddeshiya 1(1), Jabalpur, M.P. Sahkari Samiti Maryadit, Majholi Pan:Aafas3026A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

u/s 263 of the IT Act, dated 14.02.2022, on the impugned issue of eligibility of deduction w/s 80P of the Income Tax Act in respect of income received from 'Business Correspondence from IDBI was dismissed by the Hon'ble ITAT, Jabalpur in assessee's own case vide order in ITA No. 33/JAB/2022, dated 22.03.2024. 5. The appellant reserves the right

SUDEEP PANDYA L/H LLA JAYESH PANDEYA,CHHINDWARA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

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

ITA 36/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudeep Pandya L/H, Vs. Pr.Cit, Smt.Ila Jayesh Centralrevenuebuilding, Pandya, Napier Town, 14-15 Patni Jabalpur-482002, Complex, Madhya Pradesh. Parasiya Road, Chhindwara-480001 Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ahkpp7408G Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.N Purohit.Sr.Adv & Smt.Uma Parashar. Adv.Ar Respondent By : Shri Saad Kidwai.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Jabalpur Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Sudeep Pandya L/H Ila Jayesh Pandya Jabalpur. 1 The Learned Pcit Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Passing An Order Under Section 263 Against A Dead Person, The Notice Of Hearing Where Issued In The Name Of Deceased & Were Not Served On The Legal Here The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Illegal Without Jurisdiction & Void Ab-Intio Same Should Be Placed Into Toto.

For Appellant: Shri G.N Purohit.Sr.Adv &For Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai.CIT-DR
Section 10Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 16.12.2019. 3. Subsequently, the Pr. CIT on perusal of the records and information found that the order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the A.O has failed to conduct proper enquiries and observed as under