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.

57 results for “section 68”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,638Mumbai2,195Ahmedabad774Jaipur603Kolkata482Bangalore440Chennai414Hyderabad401Pune342Indore337Karnataka328Chandigarh235Surat223Rajkot175Raipur165Agra109Lucknow96Cochin86Nagpur78Visakhapatnam77Guwahati76SC72Jabalpur71Cuttack58Amritsar57Calcutta50Allahabad46Ranchi40Telangana29Jodhpur26Patna25Dehradun23Varanasi20Orissa3Rajasthan3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Punjab & Haryana1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1Gauhati1Uttarakhand1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 14770Section 14859Addition to Income51Section 143(3)41Section 6830Section 271(1)(c)28Section 69A23Section 80I23Section 25018Disallowance

SHRI RAJ KUMAR ( M/S RADHIKA SALES CORP ), AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 3 (3), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 195/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250oSection 68

68, resulting in double taxation, were liable to be deleted Kalpana vs ITO [1996] 84 Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys - Assessment year 1979-80 - Assessing Officer TAXMAN 146 (CAL.) treated high denomination notes worth Rs. 81,000 as HIGH unexplained money, disbelieving assessee's explanation as COURT OF to how he came into possession

SHRI RAVINDER SACHDEVA,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -5 (4), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3

16
Penalty15
Survey u/s 133A15
ITA 263/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri. P.N. Arora, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pardeep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68

section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1 )(b) and 271(1 )(c) of the Income

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 310/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 144aSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

section 69 of the Act are entirely inapplicable.” 6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. Ground No. 7 7. In this ground no. 7, the ld. AR for the assessee specifically mentioned that the assessee was not maintaining any books of account. The addition was made on basis of the bank statement

SHRI JASHANDEEP SINGH SIDHU,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 (3), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 11/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 144aSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

section 69 of the Act are entirely inapplicable.” 6. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. Ground No. 7 7. In this ground no. 7, the ld. AR for the assessee specifically mentioned that the assessee was not maintaining any books of account. The addition was made on basis of the bank statement

M/S SHANKAR RICE & GENERAL MILLS ,MOGA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, MOGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 205/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan GargFor Respondent: Sh. Rajiv Wadhera, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 250(6)Section 69Section 69A

68, 69 to 69D of the Act to create a deeming fiction to tax any sum already credited / offered as income. Such recourse is unwarranted within the objectives to introduce this section 115BBE of the Act. The objects and reasons for amending the section 115BBE by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016 was to prevent misuse by defaulting assessee

SHRI VARINDER KUMAR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BATALA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 54/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

penalty by invoking the provisions of section 68 and the provisions of section 68 are not at all applicable to the present

SHRI YASH PAUL MALHOTRA,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty was imposed amounting to Rs. 17,68,888/- on account of surrendered income and on account of disallowance of personal expenses pertaining to car expenses and depreciation. In the case of MAK Data (P.) Ltd. -vs.- CIT- II, 358 ITR 593 (SC), The Hon’ble Apex Court had held that: “9. We are of the view that the surrender

SHRI JASBIR SINGH ,AMRITSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 133/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 133/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

68 of the I.T.Act to be taxed as per provisions of Section 115BBE of the I.T.Act. Penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAC of the I.T.Act

H. N. AGRI SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED,SRINAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 94/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 as deemed income penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the I. T. Act, 1961 are initiated.” I.T.A. No.150/Asr/2021 8 & I.T.A. No. 94/Asr/2021 4.2 The ld. counsel in his argument submitted a paper book containing page 1 to 30 which is kept in record. In argument, the ld. counsel categorically stated that the assessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMMU vs. M/S HN AGRI SERVE PRIVATE LIMITED, SRINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 150/ASR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 as deemed income penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the I. T. Act, 1961 are initiated.” I.T.A. No.150/Asr/2021 8 & I.T.A. No. 94/Asr/2021 4.2 The ld. counsel in his argument submitted a paper book containing page 1 to 30 which is kept in record. In argument, the ld. counsel categorically stated that the assessment

SHRI MOHAMMAD ABBAS ASHRAF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, SRINAGAR

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

ITA 207/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Yashender Garg, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 44A

68 of the Act. The assessee’s counsel argued that the assessment was reopened solely based on suspicion rather than a formation of belief, citing the ITAT Delhi Bench case of Bir Bahadur Singh Sijwali v, l.T.O. as precedent. The court found that the AO had not conducted any investigation to ascertain the source of the impugned cash deposits

M/S. RAMSON SWEETS,NAWANSHAHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, NAWANSHAHAR

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

ITA 256/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. D. R
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 115BBE of the Act are attracted w.e.f. A.Y. 2018-19 and are not applicable to A.Y. 2017-18. 5. That on facts and circumstances of the case, order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, is illegal and bad in law and has been passed without considering the submissions of the assessee. 6. That

M/S. KING ENTERTAINMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NAWANSHAHR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 523/ASR/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Choudhry & Sh. O. P. Meenai.T.A. No. 523/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Kumar CIT-DR
Section 2Section 2(24)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35DSection 56Section 68

68 was inserted by Finance Act, 2012, w.e.f. 01.04.2013. Even according to clause (xvi) of section 2(24) of the Act, this consideration received for issue of shares as exceeds the fare market value of the shares referred to in clause (viib) of sub-section 2 of section 56 could be treated as income. However, no such exercise was done

SHRI MOHD MANZOOR,RAJOURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2 (3), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 166/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar21 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250oSection 28Section 44ASection 69A

penalty proceedings u/s 270A(2)(b) for under-reporting of income are being initiated separately. 7.8Thatthe Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the AO has made addition to the tune of Rs. 1124000/- u/s 69A and has relied upon the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal Vs CIT reported

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 55/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 59/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 64/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 58/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 63/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 62/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AR has filed a synopsis on penalty u/s 271(1)(c) that reads as under: “1. The assessee is an individual. His father is Late Sh. Gurmail Singh who was working as an administrator in M/s Satguru Foundation, Muktsar. The present appeals are of Sh. Arshpreet Singh