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.

6 results for “section 68”+ Section 271Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai56Jaipur32Mumbai27Karnataka21Kolkata12Ahmedabad9Hyderabad7Delhi6Bangalore6Indore4Pune3Varanasi2Chandigarh2Rajkot2SC2Jodhpur1Calcutta1Nagpur1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 271B6Section 271A5Penalty5Addition to Income5Section 1443Section 44A3Section 142(1)2Section 2502

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAMIT VOHRA, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4373/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

271A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are initiated for non-maintenance of books of account as required by section 44AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Now the only option left is to complete the assessment u/s 144 of the Income-tax act, 1961, on the basis of the information available on record

AMIT SABHARWAL,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 886/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta &
For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

271A of the Act, levied a penalty of Rs.1 lakh. 4. Before the CIT(A), it was submitted that the original assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer on 29th December, 2011 wherein some additions were made by the Assessing Officer which was confirmed by the CIT(A) and on further appeal by the assessee, the Tribunal restored

M/S. NATIONAL TRANSPORT CO.,MEERUT vs. ITO, BULANDSHAHR

In the result ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3970/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyita No.3971/Del/2014 Ay: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr.D.R
Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

68,000/–. At page 10 the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed this addition based on his conclusion that the assessee was not able to explain the gross receipts. Thus this ground is linked with the decision to be taken by the AO on ground No. 2. As we have set aside ground No. 2 to the file

MOHD AKRAM,MORADABAD UP vs. ITO -1(1),, MORADABAD UP

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for 7

ITA 4394/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No.4394/Del/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16 Mohd Akram Vs. Ito Ghosiyo Wali Puliya, Ward – 1(1) Nawabpura, Moradabad Moradabad-244001 Pan- Aczpa 0304 J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23/12/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/12/2020 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- Moradabad Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Assessee Is An Individual Who Electronically Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y. 2015-16 On 29.09.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,25,280/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Thereafter, Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act Was Also Issued On Various Dates. The Ao Has Noted That Assessee Did Not File Any Reply. He Therefore, Proceed To Frame The Assessment U/S 144 Of The Act Vide Order Dated 08.12.2017 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs.12,26,760/-.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271A

68,489/- belong to the partnership firm in which the assesse is a partner. This was through an online communication where further evidences could not be furnished due to technical difficulties. The learned CIT(A) ought to have heard the assessee’s explanation in support of his claims. However, no hearing was fixed after the date of communication

SHRI BHIM PAL DAGAR,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 368/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Chandak, CA & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 271ASection 44ASection 68

section 68 of the Act by rejecting the affidavit filed by appellant on the ground that the same was not duly notorised and the amount of gift received from relatives is not in round figure. 3. That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. MAHESH KUMAR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 173/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 173/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Vs Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Circle-21(1), C-13/170, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpk4117B Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 17.10.2011 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dum Kanunjna, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 271A

271A & 271B of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter all or any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal and add any other ground of appeal.” 3. Ground Nos. 1 & 2, the grievance of the department relates to the action of the ld. CIT(A) in directing the AO to treat the surplus amount of Rs.81