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.

86 results for “section 68”+ Section 274clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi738Mumbai640Karnataka446Bangalore206Jaipur192Ahmedabad139Kolkata94Pune92Chennai86Chandigarh73Indore51Hyderabad45Surat43Rajkot31Ranchi30Visakhapatnam29Raipur29Cuttack24Allahabad21Calcutta20Lucknow20Guwahati20Nagpur14Patna14Amritsar13Telangana12Agra11Dehradun10Cochin10Jodhpur9SC5Jabalpur4Rajasthan3Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)100Section 14A70Addition to Income66Penalty47Disallowance37Section 143(3)35Section 153A24Section 10A22Section 27421Section 132

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1253/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1253, 1264 & 1271/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle -2(3), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Vs. Jagathrakshakan Srinisha, 1St Main Road, Adyar, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Abfps-1422-E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca & Shri. Shrenik Chordia, Ca. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2025 आदेश /Order Per S.R.Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld.Cit(A), Chennai, In Respect Of The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2019 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(3) (Hereinafter Referred To As Ao) For The Assessment Year 2017-18 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Impugned Assessment Year) U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act). :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

Showing 1–20 of 86 · Page 1 of 5

18
Section 15318
Natural Justice17
Section 270A

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been

SHRI.S.J.SURYAH,CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 806/CHNY/2023[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 by without an issuance of the notice is answered as under: 4. Since the law does not mandate specific requirement to issue a notice, the opportunity of being heard can be communicated orally across the table or through a telephonic call or through a letter and all these means adopted duly recorded through an order sheet entry for having

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI vs. SJ SURYAH, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 594/CHNY/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 May 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.806/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2002-03 V. Shri S.J.Suryah, The Asst. Commissioner- No.35-1D, Of Income Tax, 114, Neelakanta Mehta Street, Central Circle-2(4), T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai. [Pan: Alyps 3012 R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 by without an issuance of the notice is answered as under: 4. Since the law does not mandate specific requirement to issue a notice, the opportunity of being heard can be communicated orally across the table or through a telephonic call or through a letter and all these means adopted duly recorded through an order sheet entry for having

M.MALARVIZHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 8(5), CHENNAI

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

ITA 779/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.779/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. M. Malarvizhi, The Income Tax Officer, 18, Mettu Theru, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 8(5), Kumananchavadi, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 056. [Pan:Apjpm2455H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pranay J. Shah, C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: “1. For That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Chennai U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Herein Without Noting That The Notice Issued By The 2

For Appellant: Shri Pranay J. Shah, C.A ""For Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 148Section 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 50C

68,03,570/- was raised. Accordingly demand notice under section 156 penalty show cause notice under section 274

M/S.ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(T)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form, where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned, would not satisfy requirement of law. The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet

M/S ENRICA ENTERPRISES PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Das

Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271ASection 274

274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(T)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form, where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned, would not satisfy requirement of law. The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 906/CHNY/2020[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE –II-(2), 46, NEW BUILDING, I FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI – 34. * * * * * PAN NO: AALPK-3243-Q Date: 30.03.2006 To MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN PROP M/S. KANKARIA AUCTIONEERS, 40 SACHIDANATHAM STREET, KOSAPET, CHENNAI – 600 012. Whereas in the course

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 912/CHNY/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE –II-(2), 46, NEW BUILDING, I FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI – 34. * * * * * PAN NO: AALPK-3243-Q Date: 30.03.2006 To MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN PROP M/S. KANKARIA AUCTIONEERS, 40 SACHIDANATHAM STREET, KOSAPET, CHENNAI – 600 012. Whereas in the course

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 905/CHNY/2020[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE –II-(2), 46, NEW BUILDING, I FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI – 34. * * * * * PAN NO: AALPK-3243-Q Date: 30.03.2006 To MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN PROP M/S. KANKARIA AUCTIONEERS, 40 SACHIDANATHAM STREET, KOSAPET, CHENNAI – 600 012. Whereas in the course

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 910/CHNY/2020[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE –II-(2), 46, NEW BUILDING, I FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI – 34. * * * * * PAN NO: AALPK-3243-Q Date: 30.03.2006 To MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN PROP M/S. KANKARIA AUCTIONEERS, 40 SACHIDANATHAM STREET, KOSAPET, CHENNAI – 600 012. Whereas in the course

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 909/CHNY/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE –II-(2), 46, NEW BUILDING, I FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI – 34. * * * * * PAN NO: AALPK-3243-Q Date: 30.03.2006 To MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN PROP M/S. KANKARIA AUCTIONEERS, 40 SACHIDANATHAM STREET, KOSAPET, CHENNAI – 600 012. Whereas in the course

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 911/CHNY/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE –II-(2), 46, NEW BUILDING, I FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI – 34. * * * * * PAN NO: AALPK-3243-Q Date: 30.03.2006 To MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN PROP M/S. KANKARIA AUCTIONEERS, 40 SACHIDANATHAM STREET, KOSAPET, CHENNAI – 600 012. Whereas in the course

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 907/CHNY/2020[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE –II-(2), 46, NEW BUILDING, I FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI – 34. * * * * * PAN NO: AALPK-3243-Q Date: 30.03.2006 To MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN PROP M/S. KANKARIA AUCTIONEERS, 40 SACHIDANATHAM STREET, KOSAPET, CHENNAI – 600 012. Whereas in the course

SHRI MAHAVEERCHAND JAIN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CC4(2), CHENNAI

The appeals stand allowed on similar lines

ITA 908/CHNY/2020[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson (Addl. CIT) –Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE –II-(2), 46, NEW BUILDING, I FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, CHENNAI – 34. * * * * * PAN NO: AALPK-3243-Q Date: 30.03.2006 To MAHAVEER CHAND JAIN PROP M/S. KANKARIA AUCTIONEERS, 40 SACHIDANATHAM STREET, KOSAPET, CHENNAI – 600 012. Whereas in the course

MAHALINGAM SUNDARA MOORTHY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-4(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1682/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1682/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mahalingam Sundara Moorthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 602, Srithi Block, Chitra Avenue, Corporate Ward 4(1), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Afypm5382G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274Section 68

274 r.w.s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act dated 30.09.2019 for non furnishing of details. The Assessing Officer issued a summon 3 I.T.A. No.1682/Chny/25 under section 131 of the Act dated 21.10.2019 requiring the assessee to appear before the Assessing Officer on 25.10.2019, but, however, assessee failed to comply with this summon and submitted partial details. The Assessing Officer

PVP VENTURES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 5(2), CHENNAI

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 778/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (Advocate)-Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 143(3)Section 22(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was issued on 31.12.2010 which read as under: - Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2008-09 appears to me that you:- *have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me within of income which you were required to furnish by a notice given under Section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1421/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

274. The Learned CIT(A) has also disregarded the contention of the appellant as no details were furnished to substantiate as to how such expenditure incurred for the appellant’s benefit and ruled against the appellant. Therefore, the assessee filed this appeal. 22. Since none was present for the assessee , we required the ld DR to present the case

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1973/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

274. The Learned CIT(A) has also disregarded the contention of the appellant as no details were furnished to substantiate as to how such expenditure incurred for the appellant’s benefit and ruled against the appellant. Therefore, the assessee filed this appeal. 22. Since none was present for the assessee , we required the ld DR to present the case

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1075/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

274. The Learned CIT(A) has also disregarded the contention of the appellant as no details were furnished to substantiate as to how such expenditure incurred for the appellant’s benefit and ruled against the appellant. Therefore, the assessee filed this appeal. 22. Since none was present for the assessee , we required the ld DR to present the case

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 663/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

274. The Learned CIT(A) has also disregarded the contention of the appellant as no details were furnished to substantiate as to how such expenditure incurred for the appellant’s benefit and ruled against the appellant. Therefore, the assessee filed this appeal. 22. Since none was present for the assessee , we required the ld DR to present the case