Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

56 results for “section 68”+ Section 32clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,706 Mumbai3,813 Bangalore1,390 Chennai1,001 Ahmedabad863 Kolkata816 Jaipur731 Hyderabad725 Karnataka691 Pune456 Indore423 Chandigarh383 Surat348 Cochin277 Raipur223 Visakhapatnam201 Rajkot195 Cuttack120 Agra116 Nagpur115 Lucknow115 Amritsar108 Telangana105 Guwahati98 Ranchi80 SC69 Calcutta67 Panaji67 Jabalpur64 Allahabad56 Jodhpur44 Patna43 Dehradun21 Varanasi20 Rajasthan12 Orissa8 Kerala8 Uttarakhand3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 Andhra Pradesh1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 Tripura1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 153A91 Addition to Income28 Section 14826 Section 153D25 Section 14724 Section 143(3)21 Section 25021 Section 15317 Section 132(1)17

M/S. GOVIND STONE PRIVATE LIMITED ,HAMIRPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -5(4), BANDA

ITA 258/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad19 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. R. S. Agrawal, Adv. &VinayGoel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh Sr.D.R

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 68

68 read with Section 115BBE is 32 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Govind Stone Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO Banda

MADHU DUBEY,ALLAHABAD vs. DC/AC-1(1),ALLAHABAD, MG MARG ALLAHABAD

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

Showing 1–20 of 56 · Page 1 of 3

Search & Seizure17

Undisclosed Income7

ITA 58/ALLD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

32,37,080/- [Rs. 1,20,00,000/- (consideration) + Rs. 11,97,000/- (stamp duty) +Rs. 40.080/- (registration fee). The value adopted by registration authority of these properties, purchased by assessee during the year is Rs. 1,76.06,000/-. Without prejudice 16 any the ? addition, the difference of this market value Rs. 1.76.06.000/and purchase price paid

GHAUS MEMORIAL SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT RANGE-2, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 63/ALLD/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Aug 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 68

section 68 of the IT. Act, 1961. However, AO noted that total credit shown as advance for land as shown in the balance sheet as on 31.3.2001 is Rs. 5,32

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. DEPUTY/ACIT(CENTRAL), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 16/ALLD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the query raised by the assessing authority vide questionnaire issued under section 142 (1) dated 23.01.2021, in assessment proceedings for the AY 2018-19.

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Ms. VidishaFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 115BSection 142Section 24Section 250Section 68Section 69

32 of the Act. Ground No.7 is decided accordingly. 12. With regard to the levy of tax under section 115BBE with respect to the unrecorded investment of Rs. 1.85 Crores in the purchase of the immovable property at M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad, we are inclined to agree with the ld. Sr. 16 A.Y.2018-19 Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal DR that

NEERAJ AGRAWAL,,MIRZAPUR vs. DCIT, MIRZAPUR

ITA 100/ALLD/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv.,Shri RajeevFor Respondent: Shri. A.K. Singh Sr.D.R

Section 131(1) to all the sundry creditors . In case where the summons under Section 131(1) returned unserved , the assessee was not informed by AO about the same and the reasons were not communicated to the assessee. It was submitted that it is only after the assessment order was passed, the assessee came to know about

DCIT CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. SHRI NEERAJ AGRAWAL, MIRZAPUR

ITA 138/ALLD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad14 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv.,Shri RajeevFor Respondent: Shri. A.K. Singh Sr.D.R

Section 131(1) to all the sundry creditors . In case where the summons under Section 131(1) returned unserved , the assessee was not informed by AO about the same and the reasons were not communicated to the assessee. It was submitted that it is only after the assessment order was passed, the assessee came to know about

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALLAHABAD, ALLAHABAD

ITA 113/ALLD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD vs. JYOTI MEDISERVICES LTD., ALLAHABAD

ITA 129/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, ,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD

ITA 115/ALLD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment

JYOTI MEDISERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,,ALLAHABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, ALLAHABAD

ITA 114/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 153A have been framed by ACIT, Central Circle, New Delhi, therefore, prior approval of the JCIT in respect of each assessment year referred to under section 153A or 153B shall have to be obtained. Thus, no order of assessment or re-assessment shall be passed by the A.O. in the present cases in respect of each assessment

SANKAR LAL JAISWAL,,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO- 1(5), ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 80/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250

68,000/- under section 69A of the Act and, therefore, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this ground also. With regard to the claim of deduction of Rs. 32

AHMAD HUSSAIN KHAN,,MIRZAPUR vs. ITO,, MIRZAPUR

ITA 544/ALLD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad11 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh.VinayGoel,C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

68, the amount should be found credited in the books of accounts of the appellant and while admittedly the appellant is not maintaining any books of account. Further it is settled view of law that bank pass book is not a books of account. Accordingly the entire exercise done by the authorities 3 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mrs. Shaheen Khan

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 87/ALLD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

section 11, and to tax the amount taken directly to the balance-sheet under the infrastructure fund and to determine the income of the assessee authority at Rs. 24,99,43,047/- for the assessment year 2015-16 and Rs. 39,68,32

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 88/ALLD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

section 11, and to tax the amount taken directly to the balance-sheet under the infrastructure fund and to determine the income of the assessee authority at Rs. 24,99,43,047/- for the assessment year 2015-16 and Rs. 39,68,32

ALLAHABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result all three appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 89/ALLD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 260A

section 11, and to tax the amount taken directly to the balance-sheet under the infrastructure fund and to determine the income of the assessee authority at Rs. 24,99,43,047/- for the assessment year 2015-16 and Rs. 39,68,32

M/S KESARWANI <ARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT (OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 159/ALLD/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Shri UtkarshFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma CIT DR

Section 132Section 153A

68 of the Income Tax Act is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant discharged the burden as required and action of the assessing officer and his observations in the course as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are not correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING(P).LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. CIT(OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 78/ALLD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Shri UtkarshFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma CIT DR

Section 132Section 153A

68 of the Income Tax Act is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant discharged the burden as required and action of the assessing officer and his observations in the course as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are not correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 77/ALLD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Shri UtkarshFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma CIT DR

Section 132Section 153A

68 of the Income Tax Act is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant discharged the burden as required and action of the assessing officer and his observations in the course as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are not correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. C.IT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 76/ALLD/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Shri UtkarshFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma CIT DR

Section 132Section 153A

68 of the Income Tax Act is highly unjustified in the facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant discharged the burden as required and action of the assessing officer and his observations in the course as confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are not correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That

DCIT, CIRCLE-II , ALLAHABAD vs. BHARAT PUMPS & COMPRESSORS LTD, ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue for ay: 2007-08 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ALLD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad12 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Ms. Tanu Singhal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Shantanu Dhamija, CIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

32,95,170/- disallowed by AO towards employee share of PF received by assessee , the assessee has itself conceded and accepted that Rs.49,96,680/- has to be disallowed because the same was not deposited at all before filing of return of income u/s 139(1). Thus, the ld counsel for the assessee reiterated that the only issue which