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 130clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,016Mumbai864Karnataka475Bangalore232Chennai225Jaipur198Ahmedabad186Kolkata151Hyderabad114Chandigarh110Cochin97Agra75Indore75Raipur61Surat58Calcutta56Pune52Lucknow48Telangana42Visakhapatnam35Rajkot33Allahabad29Nagpur27Ranchi27Cuttack25SC19Guwahati19Jodhpur14Amritsar14Patna13Dehradun10Rajasthan7Jabalpur6Varanasi5Orissa4Panaji2Andhra Pradesh1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)6Addition to Income6Section 1445Section 143(2)3Section 14A3Section 80G(5)(vi)3Section 682Section 145(3)2Section 12A2

DIVYA JYOTI SHIKSHA SAMITI,SAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BHOPAL

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 15/JAB/2019[N.A]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80Section 80G(5)(vi)

section 80G(5)(vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The CIT(E) vide order dated 28-02-2019 rejected the said application. 1 | P a g e Divya Jyoti Shiksha Samiti v. CIT (Exemptions) 2.2 The principal ground cited by the ld. CIT(E) for the said rejection is that the society is generating huge surpluses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , JABALPUR vs. M/S.TIRUPATI CONSTRUCTION (PAN AACFT8104E), OPP. RAILWAY STATION, BURHAR, DIST.- SHAHDOL (M.P.)

In the result, issue no.3 raised by the Revenue in ground no

ITA 25/JAB/2017[A.Y- 2012-13,]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Mar 2018

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 25/Jab/2017 "" " " " " " "  / Assessment Year : 2012-13   Asstt. Commissioner Of M/S. Tirupati Construction, Income-Tax, Vs Opp. Railway Station, Burhar, Central Circle Distt. – Shahdol (Mp) Jabalpur Pan : Aacft 8104 E / (Appellant) / (Respondent)         Revenue By : Shri V.B. Sargar, Dr Assessee By : Shri B.K. Nema, Adv. $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 15/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Revenue For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Jabalpur Dated 14.03.2017 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit(A)2/Jbp/Acit/Cir/Katni/024/2015-16, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 17.03.2015 Framed By The Acit, Circle-Katni.

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Nema, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V.B. Sargar, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

Section 144 of the Act assessing income at Rs.1,05,58,160/-; thereby making addition under various heads totaling to Rs.77,57,130/-. 3. Appeal of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) brought part relief. Against the addition deleted by the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal raising following ground

M/S.ASIT DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD2(2), JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 19/JAB/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2005-06 Asit Dixit, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(2), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur [Pan: Aanfm 5798A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07/10/2021

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06 vide Order dated 24/11/2010. 2. The appeal raises two grounds, as under, which shall be taken up in seriatim: ‘1. That the assessee had filed ITR declaring loss of Rs. 26,130 and the AO has estimated profit

SHRI GOVIND RATHI, PROP. GOVIND DALL MILL,HOSHANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE ITARSI, ITARSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/JAB/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Govind Rathi, Dy. Cit, Vs. Circle – Itarsi, Prop: Govind Dall Mill

Section 143(3)Section 68

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 vide order dated 13/2/2015. 2.1 The appeal raises two issues, which shall be taken up in seriatim. The first issue is in respect of two additions for Rs.4.00 lacs and Rs.1.50 lacs, i.e., at an aggregate of Rs.5.50 lacs

SHRI SUBHASH KUMAR AAHI,SATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 24/JAB/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

For Respondent: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR 1
Section 143(3)Section 250

68,550/-. 7. Aggrieved with the said assessment order, the assessee went in appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) considered the arguments of the assessee. In 11 AY 2013-14 Shri Subhash Kumar Aahi respect of the excess stock of gold, silver and cash, he held that the only inference that could be drawn was that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI ALOK RAJPUT, CHHINDWARA

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s CO, are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 56/JAB/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble

Section 143(3)Section 68

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 13/12/2017) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Jabalpur (‘CIT(A)’ for short) vide order dated 28/3/2019. The assessee’s Cross Objection (CO) is supportive. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a partner, along with his mother, Vinesh Rajput