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.

26 results for “section 68”+ Section 271(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,017Mumbai1,793Ahmedabad516Karnataka470Jaipur395Kolkata292Chennai285Bangalore270Pune230Indore208Hyderabad185Surat175Chandigarh144Raipur141Rajkot104Guwahati59Calcutta57Cochin52Visakhapatnam49Lucknow49Nagpur47Amritsar44Allahabad35Agra26Cuttack25Patna20SC20Jabalpur16Dehradun15Telangana13Jodhpur12Ranchi9Varanasi7Rajasthan4Panaji3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Gauhati1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14836Section 271(1)(c)30Section 6828Addition to Income22Penalty19Section 14715Section 271(1)11Section 143(3)10Section 27110Section 54B

SMT. SARLA DEVI,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(1), ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 70/AGR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

section 271(l)(c). Ld. CIT(A) has legally erred in confirming the penalty ignoring the fact that the Assessing Officer has not specifically mentioned whether Explanation 1 (A) is applicable or Explanation 1(B). Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed by simply referring to Explanation 1. 6. Because even otherwise neither Explanation 1(A) is applicable

SHIVA PRESERVATION PRIVATE LIMITED,ETAWAH vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(5), ETAWAH

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

8
Natural Justice7
Disallowance6

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 318/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 274Section 68

271(1)(c ) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 was filed by the Assessee Company on 15-11-2014 declaring total income of Rs. Nil under normal provisions

NALANDA BUILDERS &DVELOPERS I P LTD,AGRA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 142/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 1Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 2Section 271Section 271ASection 68

68 of the Income Tax Act, The penalty imposed by the AO, enhanced by the CIT (Appeals) is against the provisions of Section 271AAB(1)(b)/271AAB(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, same are liable to be cancelled. 4. That while enhancing the penalty, the CIT (Appeals) has not allowed the proper opportunity to the appellant for filing

M/S VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. D.C.I.T., RANGE-5, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 349/AGR/2018[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Sept 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 of the Act in the hands of the firm. 15. The Assessing Officer has to satisfy whether the penalty proceedings be initiated or not during the course of the assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer is not required to record his satisfaction in a particular manner or reduce it into writing. The scope of section 271(1

BANCO CONSTRUCTION,BANSAL KOTHI, NEHRU COLONY THATIPUR vs. ACIT, FACELESS

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 64/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhbanco Construction, Vs. Acit, Bansal Kothi, Nehru Faceless, Gwalior Colony, Thatipur, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabfb7336D Assessee By : Shri Anurag Singh, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/03/2026

For Appellant: Shri Anurag singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194ASection 271(1)(b)

68,951. The various notices under section 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the Assessee on 29- 11-2021 and 3-1-2022 and final show-cause notice dated 14-3-2022 during the course of assessment proceedings. Since there was no compliance to the said notices, penalty proceedings stood initiated under section 271

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty under section 270A of the Act also. 11. In view of our aforesaid observations, we direct the Learned AO to cancel the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1) , GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty under section 270A of the Act also. 11. In view of our aforesaid observations, we direct the Learned AO to cancel the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee

VECTUS INDUSTRIES LTD.,GWALIOR vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/AGR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c ) of the Act, the same analogy could be drawn for the penalty under section 270A of the Act also. 11. In view of our aforesaid observations, we direct the Learned AO to cancel the levy of penalty under section 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The grounds raised by the assessee

AMIT JAIN,FIROZABAD vs. ITO-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed”

ITA 287/AGR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Learned Cit (A).

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 69

271(1)(c) causing prejudice and taking away the right of the assessee to raise the issue in first appeal as and when penalty is levied. Because, while making the assessment the ‘AO’ and while sustaining 3. addition Ld. ‘CIT(A)’ made various observations/conclusions which are contrary to facts available on records. 4. Because the appellant denies liability of interest

M/S NARESH KATARE, CONTRACTOR,GWALIOR vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, GWALIOR

In the result, appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/AGR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra09 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Washim Arshad, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(l)(c) where the addition was also sustained by the Hon'ble ITAT by applying the net profit rate of 3%. The penalty so imposed was cancelled by the CIT (Appeals) and the order of CIT (Appeals) cancelling the penalty was sustained by ITAT, Agra Bench. In Assessment Year 2009-10, in the present year, the penalty

B K KESHARWANI, AGRA vs. MADHUR MITTAL, AGRA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 536/AGR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Apr 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Ld Cit(A), Who Partly Allowed

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 80C

271(1)(c) of the Act. However, ld CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 1,00,000/- u/s. 80C of the Act. 6. Aggrieved revenue has filed this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,43,07,000 made

TOMAR & BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(2)(5) ETAWAH, ETAWAH

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

ITA 440/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 41(1)Section 68

1) and not u/s. 68 of the Act to invoke the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act to impose

K P ENTERPRISES,ETAWAH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , FIROZABAD

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

ITA 341/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) the Act. In the penalty order, the AO observed that the assessee firm was in the business of civil contracts and working for Government department during the period relevant to the AY 2014-15 and it filed its return of income on 26.11.2014 for the year under consideration declaring total income at Rs.41

SMT. GARIMA MEHTA,GWALIOR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(2), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 343/AGR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 10ASection 69

68-69 is a copy of permission of the Software Technology Parks of India, granted to the assessee, extending to the assessee, all facilities and privileges admissible under the STP Scheme for setting up a 100% Export Oriented Unit under the STP Scheme, at H-239, Madhav Nagar, Opposite A.G. Office, Laskar Gwalior-474002 (M.P.), in the State of Madhya

PREM LATA VERMA ,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), ALIGARH, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 441/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 10(1)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 68 of the Act, by treating the loan advanced to M/s Raj Prem Associates (P.) Ltd. during the year under consideration as unexplained cash credits. 3. Ground No. 3: That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts by upholding the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of agricultural income, without

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 259/AGR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 260/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under : 3. At the very outset, it is noted that both these appeals were filed on 12.05.2025 against

BHAGVAN DAS L/H SHRI GAURI SHANKER,FIROZABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(2)1, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 260/AGR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54B

271(1)(c) of the Act is consequential to the assessment order, both these appeals are being disposed of by the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. The facts of ITA No. 260/Agr/2025 only are being narrated as under : 3. At the very outset, it is noted that both these appeals were filed on 12.05.2025 against

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

ITA 213/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

68 was not applicable. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption of Rs. 95,20,372 being the long term capital gain arising on transfer of shares Capital Trade Link Ltd. Under section

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

271(1 )(C) is initiated.” 3. In the impugned order, however, the ld. CIT(A) has found as follows: “3. 5.3 I have gone through the assessment order, submissions of the assessee and legal position in this regard. It is seen that although assesses has claimed that the cash deposits in the bank account are on account of business

LAKSHYA ICE & COLD STORAGE P LTD,ALIGARH vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALIGARH

In the result, by the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/AGR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S Lakshya Ice & Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Vs.. Income Tax Officer, Goyal Bhawan, Opp. Maheshwari Inter Ward 1(5), Aligarh College, Sasni Gate, Bye Pass Road, Aligarh (Pan: Aabcl5656R) (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep K. Sahgal, Adv. & Sh. Utsav Sahgal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

1. That as no valid reassessment proceedings U/S 147 of I.T.Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) read with section 148 of the Act has been initiated in the case of the appellant, thus in the light of facts and in law the learned CIT(A), Aligarh should have annulled/quashed the unlawfully made reassessment