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.

3,994 results for “TDS”+ Section 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai769Delhi753Bangalore583Kolkata273Chennai262Ahmedabad177Jaipur117Hyderabad110Chandigarh109Karnataka108Pune107Raipur84Indore84Visakhapatnam70Cochin53Cuttack49Rajkot44Surat34Lucknow32Dehradun30Nagpur26Patna26Agra20Jodhpur16Amritsar12Ranchi10Guwahati8Jabalpur7Allahabad6Telangana5Varanasi3SC3Rajasthan1Calcutta1Punjab & Haryana1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 263196Section 143(3)103Addition to Income49TDS49Section 201(1)41Section 4030Deduction29Disallowance28Section 14726Section 153A26Section 201

SARDA MINES PVT. LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-05(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 867/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

Section 263Section 35A

section 263 of the Act will also be infructuous. 1.(b) Further and in any event we wish to point out that the original assessment was reopened on the following reasons: ‘During the assessment proceedings u/s 20.1(1)/(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it has come to the notice of ACIT (TDS

Showing 1–20 of 3,994 · Page 1 of 200

...
25
Revision u/s 26321

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2280/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 57

263 has been incorrectly invoked by the Ld. PCIT. The Ld. Counsel referred to assessee’s invoked by the Ld. PCIT. The Ld. Counsel referred invoked by the Ld. PCIT. The Ld. Counsel referred paper book page 60, which is a copy of notice u/s 143 143(2) of the Act dated 29.06.2021, wherein wherein the assessee was asked

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 204/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. In This Appeal The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

Section 263 proceedings stood examined by the AO. The following tabular analysis compares the issues raised in the SCN/Order u/s 263 by Ld. PCIT and coverage thereof by the AO during the assessment proceedings: S. Discrepancies pointed out by Whether alleged discrepancy No. Ld. PCIT in her SCN/order u/s examined by AO during scrutiny 263 proceedingsu/s

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 263 of the Act which came\ninto effect from 01/06/2015 onwards. However, the same is used by him\nonly in the revision order passed u/s.263 of the Act. This goes to prove\nthat the assessee was never given an opportunity to address the\napplicability of provisions of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act\nduring the course

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

section 263. The Ld. AR further contended that in prior A.Y 2017-18 the assessee’s firm was scrutinized too by same officer and nothing adversial was found against them save and except minor addition of rs. 4486/- that too on account of interest on late payment of TDS

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

section, viz., (i) the order is erroneous; (ii) by virtue of the order being erroneous prejudice has been caused to the interests of the Revenue. It has, therefore, to be considered firstly as to when an order can be said to be erroneous. We find that the expressions "erroneous", "erroneous assessment" and "erroneous judgment" have been defined in Black

SH KELKAR & CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1611/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Kelkar & Company Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax-4, Devkaran Mansion, 36, Vs. Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Mangaldas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 9778 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harsh Kothari Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

263 and therefore, there was no requirement of separately specifying separately specifying or invoking of Explanation or invoking of Explanation-2 in the show cause notice proposing cause notice proposing for revision of the assessment order. revision of the assessment order. He submitted that once the main section is quoted and such section is submitted that once the main section

JYOTI HARSHAD MEHTA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE HARSHAD S. MEHTA),MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (C)- 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1159/MUM/2020[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2021AY 1992-93
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 263Section 263(1)

263 Income Tax Act, 1961, the PCIT illegally withhold the refund which has arisen in consequence of the PCIT (Appeal) order as well as Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s Order. This is a clear cut case of judicial indiscipline for which I request your honours that the cost be awarded under Section 254 (2B) to the asseseee and revenue

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 416/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Kaushal &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68Section 92C

section 263 of the Act. The Ld. PCIT initiated the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act for following alleged infirmities (emanating out of Show cause notice) (for brevity "SCN") 10.5 With regard to core issue as aforesaid it was contended “as per 3CD (audit report point no. 34(a)) the assessee had deducted TDS

LIVLONG INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -4 , MUMBAI

ITA 2864/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri Pritesh Mehta,ARFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai, (Sr. DR)
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80G

263 vis-à-vis enquiries conducted. We observe\nthe ld.PCIT has drawn support from Explanation 2 below section\n263(1) of the Act introduced by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 for\nhis action. The Explanation 2 inter alia provides that the order passed\nwithout making inquiries or verification 'which should have been made'\nwill be deemed to be erroneous insofar

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 716/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

TDS) erred in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act since the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act have

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3780/DEL/2013[2008-09 (F.Y. 2007- 08)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

TDS) erred in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act since the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act have

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 717/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

TDS) erred in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act since the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act have

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3781/DEL/2013[2009-10 (F.Y. 2008-09)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

TDS) erred in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act since the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act have

VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, KARNAL

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 718/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

TDS) erred in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act since the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act have

SH. VODAFONE DIGILINK LTD.,KARNAL vs. CIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the 03 Appeals i

ITA 3779/DEL/2013[2007-08 (F.Y. 2006-07)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor & Ms. Ananya KapoorFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(3)Section 250(6)Section 263

TDS) erred in assuming the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act since the revisionary proceedings under section 263 of the Act have

RAM NIWAS,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SIRSA ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, FATEHABAD

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 498/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

ANIL TUTEJA,FATEHABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 780/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

BIMLA DEVI,JAGADHRI vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 328/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263

MADHU GREWAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 603/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: the Tribunal as pointed out by the Registry. Considering that the issue involved is purely legal in nature, and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], which emphasizes that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing these appeals.3. We shall take appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 167/Chd/2023 for A.Y 2018-19 as a lead case f

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

TDS-2 Rajkot vs. Muktanangiri Maheshgiri in Civil Appeal No. 18475 of 2017 decision dated 10.11.2017, wherein the ratio of the decision of CIT vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) [2009] 181 Taxman 368 (SC) has been affirmed. It has been held in several decisions that where Pr. CIT had exercised his power to invoke the provisions of section 263