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 26323Section 153A7Section 143(3)5Revision u/s 2633Section 1472

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

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

ITA 289/RAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Chaudhury & Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

TDS deducted,fixed assets details, short/long term capital gain. (xvii) Balance sheet, profit and loss account, bank statement etc. The assessee submitted the documents and details, as mentioned above, during the original assessment proceedings u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act in response to notice under section 142(1) of the Act. During the original assessment proceedings(before first 263 order

DEVPRABHA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD.,,DHANBAD vs. PCIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Devprabha Construction Private Ltd., P.C.I.T., Dev Villa, Behind Radha Swamy Arcade, Dhanbad, Vs. Saraidhela, Dhanbad-828127. Aayakar Bhawan, Luby Pan No. Aaecb 2652 A Circular Road, Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand) Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

revision of a valid order which was again pending in appeal before NFAC. 4. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad was wrong to conclude that all the fixed assets of the Appellant company were eligible for depreciation at the rate of 15 percent and not 30 percent when the depreciation at the rate of thirty percent

SHRIRAM MARKETING SERVICES,GIRIDIH vs. PCIT, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 104/RAN/2022[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 147Section 148Section 263

revision proceeding based on his opinion and start fishing and roving inquiries in matters or orders which are already concluded. 4. The ld. PCIT, even in the notice u/s 263 has not specifically brought on record under the given facts and circumstances why the assessment order is erroneous or what enquiry was not done by the Assessing Officer (NFAC

SANJAY CHAWLA,CHAIBASA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/RAN/2025[20-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysanjay Chawla, Pr.C.I.T., Sentola, Chaibasa-833201 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Vs. Pan No. Acmpc 6808 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 63

TDS & TCS provisions. 7. That as stated above, it is not a case where no enquiry or no application of mind has been done by the Ld AO. Apparently what can be opined is only that the Ld PCTT was not fully convinced with the enquiry and verification done by the Ld AO and as such, the powers vested U/s