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.

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 273clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi487Karnataka465Mumbai464Bangalore121Chennai100Jaipur92Kolkata91Ahmedabad82Surat44Hyderabad42Indore33Cochin31Chandigarh24Pune21Nagpur17Patna16Visakhapatnam16Calcutta16Rajkot15Telangana15SC13Cuttack12Lucknow10Raipur10Guwahati8Allahabad8Agra7Kerala6Amritsar5Rajasthan4Varanasi4Jodhpur3Jabalpur1Orissa1Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 153A11Section 143(3)8Addition to Income7Section 1476Section 153C6Section 2505Section 1324Section 684Section 1543Reassessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, GUWAHATI vs. FORTUNE VANIJYA PRIVATE LIMITED, GUWAHATI

In the result both the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objections of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 21/GTY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

68 of the Act, which according to him did not constitute income represented in the form of ‘asset’ escaping assessment, in terms of fourth proviso to Section 153A of the Act. Further according to Shri Dudhwewala, cash credits were not in the nature of ‘asset’ as defined in Explanation 2 to the fourth proviso to Section 153A

2
Search & Seizure2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI vs. ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati03 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153C

68,972/-. 4. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that the assessee has submitted that it is a ledger account of M/s. Silverpoint Infratech Limited in the books of ABCL Infrastructure Pvt. Limited. The assessee got contracts from three companies, namely Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai, Coastal Projects Limited, Hyderabad; Horizon Infrastructure Limited. These were sub-contracted on back

ABCI INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 40/GTY/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Guwahati03 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: (1) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153C

68,972/-. 4. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) has observed that the assessee has submitted that it is a ledger account of M/s. Silverpoint Infratech Limited in the books of ABCL Infrastructure Pvt. Limited. The assessee got contracts from three companies, namely Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai, Coastal Projects Limited, Hyderabad; Horizon Infrastructure Limited. These were sub-contracted on back

GREENLAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,TINSUKIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-TINSUKIA, TINSUKIA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 402/GTY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 25Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 31(3)(a)

68,667/-. Assessment Page 2 of 27 I.T.A. No.: 402/Gau/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Greenlam Industries Limited. was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(3) of the Act on 20.02.2019 making disallowance of amortization expenses on the lands taken on lease at Rs. Rs.22,56,588/- and Corporate Guarantee adjustment at Rs. 83,83,979/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred

SHRI ALOK KUMAR JAIN,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 114/GTY/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati27 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.114,115&116/Gty/2012 Assessment Year: 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 Shri Alok Kumar Jain ………………………………………..…….……Appellant Amin Building, Ms Road, Athgaon, Guwahati [Pan:Actpj0806G] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati…….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri I. Ganeshori Devi, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 27, 2022

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69A

section 153A of the Act, the assessee had claimed liability of Rs.95,600/- towards sundry creditors, however, as per the balance sheet filed along with original return, there was shown no such liability of sundry creditors. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee failed to prove the identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness

SHRI ALOK KUMAR JAIN,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 115/GTY/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati27 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.114,115&116/Gty/2012 Assessment Year: 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 Shri Alok Kumar Jain ………………………………………..…….……Appellant Amin Building, Ms Road, Athgaon, Guwahati [Pan:Actpj0806G] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati…….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri I. Ganeshori Devi, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 27, 2022

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69A

section 153A of the Act, the assessee had claimed liability of Rs.95,600/- towards sundry creditors, however, as per the balance sheet filed along with original return, there was shown no such liability of sundry creditors. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee failed to prove the identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness

SHRI ALOK KUMAR JAIN,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 116/GTY/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati27 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.114,115&116/Gty/2012 Assessment Year: 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 Shri Alok Kumar Jain ………………………………………..…….……Appellant Amin Building, Ms Road, Athgaon, Guwahati [Pan:Actpj0806G] Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati…….…..…...............……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri I. Ganeshori Devi, Jcit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 23, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 27, 2022

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69A

section 153A of the Act, the assessee had claimed liability of Rs.95,600/- towards sundry creditors, however, as per the balance sheet filed along with original return, there was shown no such liability of sundry creditors. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee failed to prove the identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness

PRIYANSHU BOIRAGI,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/GTY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2014-15 Priyanshu Boiragi Acit, Circle-1, Guwahati 16, Prasanti Path, Basistha Vs. Road, Survey Guwahati, Assam- 781028. Pan: Aiapb 4499 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, Fca Respondent By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.10.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals, Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’]. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That Both The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac As Well As Ld. J.A.O. Are Not Justified In Confirming/Rejecting The Petition Filed U/S. 154 Of I.T. Act 1961 Claiming Deduction U/S. 80(Ie) In Respect Of Vat Remission Claimed As Revenue Receipt In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ii. For That The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Was Not Justified Also In Not Considering The Cbdt Circular No. 39/2016 (F. No.279/Misc/140/2015/Itj Dated 29.11.2016 & No. 68 (F. No.245/17/71-A & Pac) Dated 17.11.1971 As Submitted By The Appellant Online Firstly On 16.01.2016 & Secondly On 05.10.2021 Vide Annexures - 5 & 6 In The Appellant'S Written Submission Dated 16.01.2021 While Passing The Appellate Order U/S. 250 Of I.T. Act 1961 Iii. For That The Ld. A.O. Has Not Considered In Right Perspective Rectification Petition Dated 21.04.2016, 09.04.2019 16.03.2020 Submitted Online Vide Annexure - 3 Of Appellant'S Written Submission Dated 16.01.2021. 2 Priyanshu Boiragi A.Y. 2014-15 Iv. For That The Other Grounds Of Law As Well As Of Facts, The Appellant May Be Allowed To Raise On Or Before The Hearing Of The Case.”

For Appellant: Shri Jay Prakash Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 80

68,73,064/- and claimed deduction of Rs. 10,11,41,141/- under Chapter VIA u/s 80-IE of the Act being profit derived from manufacturing activities which included a deduction of Rs. 84,53,370/- in respect of VAT Remission as part of profit derived from the industry running under the name and style of M/s. Purbashree Printing House