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.

5 results for “section 68”+ Section 111Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai52Kolkata13Ahmedabad9Indore5Bangalore5Pune4Jaipur3Delhi3Nagpur3Hyderabad2Chennai2

Key Topics

Section 6814Section 143(3)5Section 10(38)5Addition to Income5Long Term Capital Gains4Short Term Capital Gains4Capital Gains2Disallowance2

SARITA BAGDI ,INDORE vs. THE ITO WARD-4(1), INDORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2011-12

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

section 68 of the Act. In the light of the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by it, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 5. In the light of the above findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, it is not possible to state that the view adopted by the Tribunal is, in any manner, unreasonable or perverse

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

ITA 315/IND/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore
30 Oct 2018
AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

111A of the I.T Act. 21. As far as Ground No.2 is concerned the facts are little different because the alleged capital gain of Rs.17,23,052/- has been claimed as exempt income by virtue of provision of Section 10(38) of the I.T. Act. However the Assessing Officer applying the same finding which he has taken for treating

SHRI PRADEEP MAHESHWARI HUF,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 3(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

ITA 53/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

111A of the I.T Act. 21. As far as Ground No.2 is concerned the facts are little different because the alleged capital gain of Rs.17,23,052/- has been claimed as exempt income by virtue of provision of Section 10(38) of the I.T. Act. However the Assessing Officer applying the same finding which he has taken for treating

SMT. ANNAPURNA MAHESHWARI,INDORE vs. THE ITO-4(1), INDORE

In the result I.T.A.No.315/Ind/2012& I

ITA 252/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

111A of the I.T Act. 21. As far as Ground No.2 is concerned the facts are little different because the alleged capital gain of Rs.17,23,052/- has been claimed as exempt income by virtue of provision of Section 10(38) of the I.T. Act. However the Assessing Officer applying the same finding which he has taken for treating

SHRI OM PRAKASH PHATANDAS PANJWANI,INDORE vs. THE ACIT 1(2), INDORE

In the result Ground No. 1 to 6 of the assessee’s appeal are allowed

ITA 968/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 111ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

111A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Because on facts and in circumstances of the case, both Ld. Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) has erred in going into undue considerations and making baseless observations. 5. Because on facts and in circumstances of the case, no attention was given to the submissions made by the assessee either