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.

7 results for “section 68”+ Section 249(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai555Delhi523Karnataka487Ahmedabad149Kolkata135Bangalore129Jaipur116Chennai67Chandigarh58Indore54Hyderabad54Pune53Surat41Raipur39Nagpur37Guwahati17Calcutta17Cochin16Visakhapatnam14Lucknow14Rajkot11Telangana9Varanasi8Agra7Amritsar7Dehradun7SC7Ranchi6Panaji5Rajasthan4Cuttack4Patna3Allahabad3Jodhpur2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 6810Section 12A9Addition to Income7Section 2(15)6Section 145(3)6Cash Deposit3Exemption3Section 143(3)2Section 1442Section 69

ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA vs. JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 355/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

249/- being the receipts shown in 'infrastructure development fund' account. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the above receipts are in terms of notification issued by Uttar Pradesh Government and has no correlation with the regular activities of the appellant. The same is again in utter disregard to various judicial pronouncement & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017

JHASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, AGRA

2

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 256/AGR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

249/- being the receipts shown in 'infrastructure development fund' account. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the above receipts are in terms of notification issued by Uttar Pradesh Government and has no correlation with the regular activities of the appellant. The same is again in utter disregard to various judicial pronouncement & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017

JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

ITA 149/AGR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

Section 12ASection 145(3)Section 2(15)

249/- being the receipts shown in 'infrastructure development fund' account. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the above receipts are in terms of notification issued by Uttar Pradesh Government and has no correlation with the regular activities of the appellant. The same is again in utter disregard to various judicial pronouncement & 355/Agra/2014 & SA Nos. 1 to 3/Ag/2017

HARSH SALUJA,MATHURA vs. ITO 3(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 165/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 251(2)Section 44ASection 68

2. The assessee is a Proprietor of M/s. Option Aqua Control Technologies through, which trading of sanitary goods was done and total turnover was Rs.27,59,131/- on which GP shown by the assessee is 23.36% and net profit is 11.25% after deduction of depreciation for Rs.25,967/- on computer and motor cycle, net profit comes to Rs.2

HARSH SALUJA ,MATHURA vs. ITO 1(3)(2), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 122/AGR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 68Section 69Section 69A

2 5. The penalty was levied on the addition of Rs.12,97,291/-. The Tribunal, however, has deleted the entire addition by holdings as follows: “4. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in making the addition of Rs.12,97,291/- u/s 68 of the IT Act, representing the deposits as unexplained

MANJU AGARWAL,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 16/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Manju Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, W/O. Sameer Agarwal, Ward-1(2), Near Surya Tower, Old Gwalior High Court Road, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afepa7981H Assessee By : Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 249(4)(b)

68,47,079/-) as alleged unexplained money without considering the written submission made during assessment. proceedings and statement of facts given in Form No. 35 and written submission during appellate proceedings in correct perspective. 2. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, and in any view of the matter, the Ld. Authorities below have erred

RAJAT GOEL (HUF),MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(3)(1), MATHURA, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 240/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2020-21]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section - 249(3), the appeal filed by the appellant should have been admitted because the delay of 54 days in filing of 1st appeal was on account of sufficient and reasonable cause duly explained to Ld. NFAC. The appellate order dated - 08.03.2025 passed by Ld. NFAC, Delhi is liable to be set aside. 2. That in view of reasonable