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 results for “section 68”+ Section 269Tclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur34Delhi24Mumbai20Pune17Ahmedabad13Hyderabad12Indore12Nagpur12Kolkata10Bangalore9Visakhapatnam9Surat7Lucknow5Rajkot4Chennai3Chandigarh3Cuttack2Cochin2Amritsar1SC1Jabalpur1Telangana1Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 269S5Section 271D4Section 684Addition to Income3Section 271E2Section 1472Deduction2Penalty2Disallowance2

GS & SD ASSOCIATES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2767/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2767/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gs & Sd Associates, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 03, Vania Street, Kundrathur, Non Corporate Ward 8(2), Chennai 600 069. Chennai. [Pan:Aaqfg8838C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148
Section 269S
Section 68

68 of the Act are not applicable to transactions between the assessee (FIRM) and its partners and drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Muralidhar Jhawar and Purna Ginning and Pressing Factory [1966] 60 ITR 95 (SC). 5. The ld. AR argued that the ld. CIT(A) failed to note that

JANARDHANAM BALAJI,THIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, THIRUVALLUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 3011/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R.Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

Section 273B of the Act, if an assessee could prove that the failure to abide by Sec. 269SS and 269T of the Act was for a reasonable cause then levy of penalty u/s.271D and 271E of the Act, could be excused. However, here in the case before us, first explanation of the assessee was that the amounts received were

SHRI JANARDHANAM BALAJI,,THIRUVALLUR vs. ITO, THIRUVALLUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 3077/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R.Durai Pandian, JCIT
Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

Section 273B of the Act, if an assessee could prove that the failure to abide by Sec. 269SS and 269T of the Act was for a reasonable cause then levy of penalty u/s.271D and 271E of the Act, could be excused. However, here in the case before us, first explanation of the assessee was that the amounts received were