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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai472Delhi427Bangalore258Chennai177Kolkata171Chandigarh66Ahmedabad54Pune51Jaipur48Hyderabad46Indore36Lucknow29Raipur27Rajkot24Visakhapatnam22Agra17Patna17Cochin14Surat13Cuttack11Karnataka6Amritsar6Guwahati4Nagpur4Jodhpur3Jabalpur3Ranchi3Allahabad2Varanasi2Dehradun1Panaji1Telangana1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 263230Section 143(3)142Disallowance51Addition to Income48Deduction46Section 4043Section 244A36TDS35Revision u/s 26334Section 14A

BINOD KUMAR MAHATO ,BURDWAN vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - BURDWAN , BURDWAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2173/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2021AY 2014-15
Section 144Section 250Section 263Section 271ASection 44A

u/s. 263 of the Act vide dated 13.10.2015 for the clarification of the above transactions. Act vide dated 13.10.2015 for the clarification of the above transactions. Act vide dated 13.10.2015 for the clarification of the above transactions. In compliance thereto, the assessee submitted as under : ompliance thereto, the assessee submitted as under : i) The deposit in HDFC bank account

SKAN ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. PR.C.I.T.-12, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 171 · Page 1 of 9

...
32
Section 153A30
Section 143(2)21
ITA 840/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2020AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 263

u/s 143(3) under CASS. In the show cause notice issue on the above mentioned issue of In the show cause notice issue on the above mentioned issue of revision of the order revision of the order of the Ld. Income Tax Officer, it has been alleged that the revision is warranted mainly of the Ld. Income Tax Officer

M/S ROSEMARY VINCOM LLP ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 47(5), KOLKATA

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

ITA 65/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 143(3)Section 263

u/s. 263 of the Act vide dated 13.10.2015 for the clarification of the above transactions. In compliance thereto, the assessee submitted as under : i) The deposit in HDFC bank account No. 03151930000609 was duly reflected in his IT return. Therefore, no cause has happened to the Revenue which is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. ii) The deposit

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 813/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

TDS certificates in Form No. 16A and the fact that the assessee is a registered contractor and had claimed deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, were very much part of the record prior to the search & seizure operations. The Assessing Officer had considered them in his original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as well

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 814/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

TDS certificates in Form No. 16A and the fact that the assessee is a registered contractor and had claimed deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, were very much part of the record prior to the search & seizure operations. The Assessing Officer had considered them in his original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as well

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 816/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

TDS certificates in Form No. 16A and the fact that the assessee is a registered contractor and had claimed deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, were very much part of the record prior to the search & seizure operations. The Assessing Officer had considered them in his original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as well

M/S/ RASHMI METALIKS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 815/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

TDS certificates in Form No. 16A and the fact that the assessee is a registered contractor and had claimed deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, were very much part of the record prior to the search & seizure operations. The Assessing Officer had considered them in his original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, as well

METALIND PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1241/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1241/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 1242/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Metalind Private Ltd...........……………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant 51, Canal East Road Kolkata – 700 085 [Pan : Aaccm 2883 J] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata.......…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Singh, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Both Dt. 22/03/2017, For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Both These Appeals Belong To The Same Assessee. Hence For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Real Estate & Related Activities. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 29/09/2011, Declaring Nil Income & For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 29/09/2012, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,48,59,970/-. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted U/S 132 Of The Act On The Assessee On 04/10/2012. Consequentially Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Were Issued & The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income In Response Thereto Declaring The Same Income As That Disclosed By It In The Original Return Of Income For Both The Assessment Years. The Assessing

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 40

TDS certificates in Form No. 16A and the fact that the assessee is a registered contractor and had claimed deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, were very much part of the record prior to the search & seizure operations. The Assessing Officer had considered them in his original 12 I.T.A. No. 1241/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 1242/Kol/2017 Assessment

METALIND PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1242/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1241/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 1242/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Metalind Private Ltd...........……………………………………....…………………………………………Appellant 51, Canal East Road Kolkata – 700 085 [Pan : Aaccm 2883 J] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Kolkata.......…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Singh, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate But Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Both Dt. 22/03/2017, For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2. Both These Appeals Belong To The Same Assessee. Hence For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Heard Together & Disposed Off By Way Of This Common Order. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Real Estate & Related Activities. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 29/09/2011, Declaring Nil Income & For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 29/09/2012, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,48,59,970/-. A Search & Seizure Operation Was Conducted U/S 132 Of The Act On The Assessee On 04/10/2012. Consequentially Notice U/S 153A Of The Act, Were Issued & The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income In Response Thereto Declaring The Same Income As That Disclosed By It In The Original Return Of Income For Both The Assessment Years. The Assessing

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 40

TDS certificates in Form No. 16A and the fact that the assessee is a registered contractor and had claimed deduction u/s 80-IA of the Act, were very much part of the record prior to the search & seizure operations. The Assessing Officer had considered them in his original 12 I.T.A. No. 1241/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & I.T.A. No. 1242/Kol/2017 Assessment

BIJNI DOOARS TEA COMPANY LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOL-2, KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 409/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bijni Dooars Tea Company Principal Commissioner Of Ltd. Income-Tax, Kolkata-2, 4Th Floor, Room No. 1, Kolkata. Vs. Shantiniketan, 8, Camac Street, Kolkata-700017. (Pan: Aabcb1013E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Mita Rizvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 115PSection 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

263 cannot be assumed. In the present case, the issue relates to DDT liability on the proposed dividend declared by the assessee. According to the Ld. Counsel, there is no order which raises a demand on the assessee by holding it as an assessee in default as required u/s. 115Q and, therefore, no revision can be done. 15.1. With

M/S TIRUPATI CONSTRUCTION,HOOGHLY vs. CIT-XX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1186/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri S.M Surana, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: None appeared
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194C(3)Section 194ISection 263Section 40

revision proceedings in the order passed u/s. 263. Hence the addition proposed towards understatement of receipt of Rs. 1,20,49,196/- is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the order passed by the ld.CIT u/s. 263 is modified to this extent. Hence Ground nos. 8-10 raised by the assessee are allowed. ITA No.1186/Kol/2014-B-AM 7 M/s. Tirupati Construction

ARABINDA ROY,HOOGHLY vs. C.I.T KOLKATA - XX, HOOGHLY

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1367/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

TDS from the payments made to them. In course of the assessment proceedings, the Forms 15G obtained from these parties were duly submitted before the AO and accordingly, the same was allowed by him. It is settled ITA No.1367/Kol/2013 A.Y 2008-09 Arabinda Roy vs. CIT-XX, Kol Page 7 that the assessee's claim was to be accepted that

SANJEEV KUMAR KHEMKA,KOLKATA vs. CIT-15, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1361/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 263

u/s. 263 of the Act vide dated 13.10.2015 for the clarification of the above transactions. ITA No.1361/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 S.K. Khemka Vs. Pr. CIT-15 Kol. Page 8 In compliance thereto, the assessee submitted as under : i) The deposit in HDFC bank account No. 03151930000609 was duly reflected in his IT return. Therefore, no cause has happened

SRI HARTAJ SEWA SINGH,KOLKATA vs. DCIT(IT), CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1011/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2012-13

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

TDS has been already submitted to you as per annexure-X) and paid to the Central Government within due dates where ever applicable. From the above, it is clear that order was passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act after conducting necessary enquiries and considering the submission filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings

M/S UMANG COMMERCIAL CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1173/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna,CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

revision of original assessment order u/s 143(3) without considering the facts and the law explained before the AO as well as before Ld. PCIT as well. 2. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances, the order u/s. 263 is wholly bad, illegal and void ab initio and such order u/s 263 has been made

D.C.I.T CIR - 3,KOLATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MANTORA OIL PRODUCTS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2252/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40A(2)

revision u/s 263 of the Act. 20. As regards to payments of Rs.1,20,11,512/- majorly comprised of testing and refining charges paid to accredited agencies such as A.J. Hall marking Centre, G.N. Hallmarking & Refinery Pvt. Ltd. & Rahul hallmarks Pvt. Ltd. all the payments were made through proper banking channel and subjected to TDS

ANJALI JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOLKATA-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2252/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40A(2)

revision u/s 263 of the Act. 20. As regards to payments of Rs.1,20,11,512/- majorly comprised of testing and refining charges paid to accredited agencies such as A.J. Hall marking Centre, G.N. Hallmarking & Refinery Pvt. Ltd. & Rahul hallmarks Pvt. Ltd. all the payments were made through proper banking channel and subjected to TDS

M/S. Y.R. TRADERS (P) LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, KOLKATA - 1, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1006/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1006/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

revised should be erroneous and secondly, it should be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Such occasions arise when the A.O. while passing assessment order u/s. 143(3) did not have called for such information/ documents from the assessee to frame the assessment and did not consider the same before completing the assessment. Once the A.O. conducts enquiry

RIVERBANK DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. CIT -4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1329/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

263 of the Act. 8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties. We have also perused the documents furnished before us in the paper book, considered the facts of the case and the judicial decisions relied upon by the parties in their submissions. From the perusal of the SCN and the impugned order, we note that

M/S. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 805/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

revision order of the Ld. Pr. CIT- 4, Kolkata dated 26.02.2019 for AY 2014-15. 2. In the memorandum of appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (the CIT) was unjustified in law and on facts in exercising