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”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai443Delhi398Bangalore245Kolkata171Chennai171Chandigarh90Jaipur72Ahmedabad69Hyderabad67Pune56Visakhapatnam51Indore51Cochin41Raipur35Rajkot24Lucknow24Patna17Cuttack15Agra14Surat14Amritsar9Jodhpur6Karnataka6Nagpur5Guwahati4Jabalpur4Ranchi4Allahabad3Varanasi2Punjab & Haryana1Panaji1Telangana1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 26318Section 14712Section 35A6Section 143(1)5Section 405Section 143(3)4Section 1444Section 40A(3)3Revision u/s 2633Addition to Income

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

ITA 349/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS 3.4 The assessee submits that, it had deducted TDS at the rate of one percent amounting to Rs. 12,52,000/- on sale consideration of Rs. 12,52,00,000/-. The assessee has duly paid the TDS amount of Rs. 12,52,000. The assessee had duly issued

3
Reassessment2
Reopening of Assessment2

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

ITA 350/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS 3.4 The assessee submits that, it had deducted TDS at the rate of one percent amounting to Rs. 12,52,000/- on sale consideration of Rs. 12,52,00,000/-. The assessee has duly paid the TDS amount of Rs. 12,52,000. The assessee had duly issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, KHAMGAON, KHAMGAON vs. RENUKA OIL INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 390/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 35A

revised (though invalid) ITR/Audit report, not making claim of depreciation alternatively allowable u/s 32 on the capital expenditure incurred by the appellant on construction of the Warehouse in accordance with section 35AD(4), not disputing the factum or quantum (except disallowance of construction expenses of Rs 1.90.70,349 discussed in succeeding paragraphs) of investment in construction of the warehouse

SNNEHSHILP CONSTRUCTIONS,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(5), NAGPUR

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

ITA 413/NAG/2023[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur11 Jul 2024AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Milind BhusariFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 40

TDS on gross contract receipts of ` 3,01,24,661, as against the gross receipts taken by the Assessing Officer at ` 1,49,75,822, and, therefore, vide order under section 263 of the Act dated 26/03/2009, set- aside the assessment order dated 31/12/2007, with a direction to the Assessing Officer to modify the assessment accordingly. 6. Meanwhile, the learned

KHALID NADEEM ALLARAKHA,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 9/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Manoj MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 43A(3)

u/s 143(3) is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Nagpur erred in confirming the addition made at Rs.1,03,50,968 by assessing officer applying the provisions of section 40A(3), therefore order passed is unjustified, unwarranted