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 271D(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi57Jaipur54Mumbai41Hyderabad27Chennai26Karnataka21Ahmedabad19Kolkata14Pune13Indore12Agra9Bangalore9Surat7Rajkot5Chandigarh3Cuttack3Jabalpur2Nagpur2Visakhapatnam2Lucknow1Ranchi1SC1Cochin1Varanasi1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 269S8Section 271D4Addition to Income3Section 1322Section 402Penalty2Search & Seizure2

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

271D of the Act, the revenue has to establish that what was received by the assessee, was a loan deposit within the meaning of section 269SS of the Act. Under Rule 2(b) or (ix) of the Rules, deposit does not include any amount received from a director, relative of director or member of a private limited company

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 206/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack
18 Sept 2024
AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

271D of the Act, the revenue has to establish that what was received by the assessee, was a loan deposit within the meaning of section 269SS of the Act. Under Rule 2(b) or (ix) of the Rules, deposit does not include any amount received from a director, relative of director or member of a private limited company

KISHAN MOTORS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 169/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43B

2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 is to remove unintended and undue hardship and therefore this vs ITO in ITA No.296/CTK/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15. 13. Ld D.R. agreed to the submission of ld A.R. of the assessee. 14. On careful consideration of the rival submissions, we find that the Assessing Officer has disallowed Rs.4,28,100/- & Rs.47