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.

324 results for “section 68”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,590Mumbai2,127Ahmedabad761Jaipur580Kolkata474Chennai427Bangalore426Hyderabad392Pune339Karnataka328Indore324Chandigarh235Surat216Raipur165Rajkot158Agra108Lucknow95Cochin86Guwahati76Visakhapatnam74SC72Jabalpur71Nagpur67Cuttack58Amritsar57Calcutta50Allahabad46Ranchi40Telangana29Dehradun23Jodhpur21Varanasi20Patna20Rajasthan3Orissa3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Punjab & Haryana1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1Gauhati1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Uttarakhand1Panaji1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 6864Section 153A53Addition to Income52Section 143(3)44Section 115B39Section 139(1)37TDS37Section 15433Section 234E33Section 69A

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

ITA 699/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271A

penalty under section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 until and unless income so disclosed by the assessee falls in the definition of ‘undisclosed income’ defined in Explanation to section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2.4.1] The appellant accepted additional income to the tune of Rs. 68

RAJESH BAJAJ,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 16/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Kumar Bajaj Acit 13, Rajesh Industries, Vs. Khandwa Industrial Estate Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Ahnpb0036F Appellant By Shri S.S. Sheetal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashishporwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2020 O R D E R

Showing 1–20 of 324 · Page 1 of 17

...
27
Penalty25
Disallowance14
Bench:
Section 115Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

penalty on such intentionally deferred tax liabilities and if he is not subjected to survey action u/s 133A of the Act he keeps on enjoying the benefits. 16. To cope up with this situation Section 115BBE of the Act was inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2013 indicating that only if the income falls u/s 68

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 29/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

Section 115BSection 131(1)Section 133ASection 69ASection 69B

Penalty proceeding u/s 271AAC is also initiated separately. 6. The AO has applied the provision of section 69B of the Act for want of any supporting evidence regarding source of excess stock and nature of income which was not found recorded in the books of account at the time of survey. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed

GAURAV AJMERA,RATLAM vs. DCIT(CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 808/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 115BSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 274

section 271AAB of the Act, he wishes to invoke. There is clear absence of such direction. Ld. counsel for the assessee has relied upon various judicial pronouncements in support of his contention that where the notice is being defective, therefore, no penalty can be levied or sustained. 14. In the light of the above binding precedent and coupled with fact

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 50/IND/2020[150-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961. As the assessee has deliberately and willfully concealed its unaccounted income, and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, the penalty

AABHUSHAN,DHAMNOD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/IND/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of I. T. Act, 1961 is being initiated separately on this issue. Addition of Rs.2,00,54,089/-“ 7.1 Ld. AR has pointed out that since the order was passed on 16.12.2019 and assessee was not given sufficient time to produce the supporting evidence. We agree with this

SRIYANS KUMAR JAIN HUF,BERASIA vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 289/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2019-20 Sriyans Kumar Jain Huf, Pcit (Central), Prop. Of M/S Siryans Bhopal Kumar Akshay Kumar Jain, बनाम/ Main Road, Vs. Berasia

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69Section 69A

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty

NEMICHAND JAIN HUF,BERASIA vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), BHOPAL

Appeal is allowed

ITA 223/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year: 2019-20 Nemichand Jain Huf Pcit (Central), Prop. M/S. Mahavir Bhopal बनाम/ Jewellers. Near Bus Stand Vs. Berasia (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aachn1847E Assessee By Shri Govind Rinwa, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.01.2025

Section 115BSection 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69Section 69A

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 909/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961. As the assessee has deliberately and willfully concealed its unaccounted income, and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, the penalty

BARKHA KHANDELWAL,AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1),INDORE, INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 85/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanismt. Barkha Khandelwal Ito -3(1) Aggrieved Assesse Indore 1108, Pinnacle D Dreams, Tower -1 Vs. Near Bhawan Prominent School Pipliyakumar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Ajnpk4150B Assessee By Shri Rakesh Gupta, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20 .09.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 68

68, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. Page 3 of 13 ITANo.85/Ind/2024 Barkha Khandelwal 13. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Solanki, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5.22 As per above discussion, the addition u/s 68 is coming to Rs. 11,77,50,000/- and addition u/s. 56(2)(viib) is coming to Rs. 11,49,18,112/- only. As double addition cannot be made, therefore addition u/s 68 as discussed above

ITO 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S AMKAY COLONISERS & BUILDERS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 32/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito 1(1) M/S. Amkay Colonisers & Bhopal Builders Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 16, Amar Stambh, Z-1, M.P. Nagar Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue ) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaeca 6272 F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated for concealing the particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 9. During appellate proceeding, Ld. CIT(A), however, deleted the addition by observing and holding thus: “10. Ground No. 4:- Through this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the addition

STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD,GOVINDPURA BHOPAL vs. ACIT/DCIT 1(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 124/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Star Delta Transformers Acit/Dcit 1(1) Ltd., Bhopal 92-A Industrial Area बनाम/ Govindpura, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaccs0399D Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271A

68,695/- and unexplained stock of Rs. 4,39,948/-. Therefore, penalty to that extent is acceptable to assessee. 4. Ld. AR next submitted that the assessee is against penalty imposed by AO qua third component i.e. the undisclosed income of Rs. 17,00,000/- admitted during search and offered by assessee in the return of income filed

SHRI VARAD MEHTA,BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 693/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2008-09 Shri Varad Mehta, Dcit 1(1), B-4/301, Paras City, Vs. Bhopal Arera Colony, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aflpm6733Q Revenue By Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr.Dr Assessee By Shri Girish Agrawal,Ca Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2018 O R D E R

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

penalty cannot be sustained by raising a presumption of concealment of income under the 8 Varad Mehta Explanation to section 271(1)(c) - Held, yes . b. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M.M. Gujamgadi - [2007] 162 Taxman 211 - order dated 08.02.2005 - HEAD NOTE - Section 271(1)(c), read with section 68

M/S PLATINUM HORAZINE PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands

ITA 713/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ I.T.A. No.713/Ind/2016 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)Section 4Section 5

penalty of Rs. 6,49,630/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ergo, these are being considered and disposed-of together. 8. Succinctly, facts as culled out from the orders of lower authorities are that the assessee is a Private Limited M/s. Platinum Horazine Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT 3(1) Indore /I.T.A. No. 713/Ind/2016/AY09-10 Page

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 2(1), UJJAIN vs. SMT. SAROJ THAKUR, UJJAIN

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed

ITA 539/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

Section 68 of the Act. However since the loans were taken in cash penalty u/s 271D of the Act was initiated

M/S LAXMINARAYAN ASSOCIATESBHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result, Quantum appeal is partly allowed and penalty appeal is allowed

ITA 83/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 40Section 68

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated

M/S LAXMINARAYAN ASSOCIATESBHOPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(2), BHOPAL

In the result, Quantum appeal is partly allowed and penalty appeal is allowed

ITA 215/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 40Section 68

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are initiated

SHRI VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE PR.CIT-1, INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

section 14A was warranted, was a debatable fact. In any event, even if it were not debatable, the error by the Assessing Officer is not “unsustainable”. Possibly he could have taken another view; yet, that he did not do so, would not render his opinion an unsustainable one, warranting exercise of section 263.” 43. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court

DR. VINOD BHANDARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIR. 2(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

section 14A was warranted, was a debatable fact. In any event, even if it were not debatable, the error by the Assessing Officer is not “unsustainable”. Possibly he could have taken another view; yet, that he did not do so, would not render his opinion an unsustainable one, warranting exercise of section 263.” 43. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court