Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

18 results for “section 68”+ Section 144clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,581 Mumbai1,487 Kolkata521 Karnataka499 Ahmedabad424 Bangalore390 Jaipur383 Chennai362 Hyderabad290 Surat188 Chandigarh183 Indore175 Pune164 Raipur144 Rajkot132 Cochin114 Amritsar91 Nagpur74 Lucknow74 Patna56 Visakhapatnam55 Agra54 Calcutta54 Guwahati51 Jodhpur45 Allahabad40 Telangana40 Cuttack26 SC25 Jabalpur18 Dehradun16 Ranchi10 Panaji9 Varanasi8 Rajasthan5 Orissa5 Uttarakhand1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14818 Section 14716 Addition to Income16 Section 14414 Section 25012 Section 26312 Section 80P10 Section 689 Cash Deposit7 Natural Justice

JAINAM GROUP CHHINDWARA,CHHINDWARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

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

ITA 83/JAB/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: \nSh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: \nSh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 68

sections": [ "147", "144", "68", "271(1)(c)", "271(1)(b)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeal was sufficiently

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

7

Section 142(1)6

ITA 168/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed

ITAT Jabalpur

28 Aug 2025

AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

68 of the Income Tax Act and brought the same to the tax, as per the provisions of section 115BBE. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Thereafter, the ld. AO issued penalty notices under section 274 r.w.s 271 AAC(1) asking the assessee why an order imposing

AMIT KUMAR YADAV,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SEONI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 166/JAB/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)

68 of the Income Tax Act and brought the same to the tax, as per the provisions of section 115BBE. He also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271AAC(1) and 272A(1)(d) of the Act. Thereafter, the ld. AO issued penalty notices under section 274 r.w.s 271 AAC(1) asking the assessee why an order imposing

NAGAR PANCHAYAT,BANDA vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE SAGAR, SAGAR

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

ITA 118/JAB/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Nagar Panchayat, Banda, Vs. The Acit, Nagar Parishad Building, Banda, Sagar, Circle Sagar, Sagar Banda Nagar S.O. Madhya Pradesh Pan:Aaaln0246R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 7.05.2024 Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Dcit, Circle-Sagar, Madhya Pradesh Passed On 10.12.2019 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre ('Nfac) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-Sagar ('Ao) In Adding A Sum Of Rs. 68,21,182/- To The Income Of The Assessee U/S. 69A As Unexplained Money. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Dated 10.12.2019 Is Without Jurisdiction, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.3 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Order Is Opposed To The Principles Of Equity, Natural Justice & Fair Play.

For Appellant: Sh. Milind Wadhwani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NFAC) erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-Sagar ('AO) in adding a sum of Rs. 68

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

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 168/JAB/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250

144 and substantial additions to returned income had been made. Aggrieved by the said orders, the assessee had preferred an appeal to the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) issued several notices on the email of the accountant, who did not look into it. The assessee submitted that as such he was unaware about the hearing notices

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 167/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250

144 and substantial additions to returned income had been made. Aggrieved by the said orders, the assessee had preferred an appeal to the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) issued several notices on the email of the accountant, who did not look into it. The assessee submitted that as such he was unaware about the hearing notices

DAYANAND PARYANI,SIDHI vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER , SINGRAULI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 125/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur17 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11 Dayanand Paryani V. Income Tax Officer Madhur Courier Service Income Tax Office, Opposite Raj Vilas Hotel, Singrauli, Tali Road, Martand Complex Rew, Sidhi- Waidhan, Singrauli- 486001. 486886 Pan: Aespp8087N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate. Respondent By: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 16 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr.DR-1

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

section 68 of the Act without considering the alternate submission of the appellant that if at all addition have to be made it is to made only of peak credit. 5. The appellant craves for leave to amend, add to or omit any ground up to the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Briefly stated facts are that

RAJENDRA SINGH BAGGA,DAMOH vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, KATNI

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

ITA 187/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Rajendra Singh Bagga, 15 43, Tandon Vs. National Faceless Assessment Bagicha, College Road, Gayatri Nagar, Centre, Delhi [Jurisdiction Damoh, M.P. Officer-Acit Katni-Circle, Katni Pan:Adgpb8418G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 14.10.2024 Whereby Learned Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Learned Ao Under Section 147 Read With Section 144 Dated 30.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Ex- Party Order Without Providing Adequate Opportunity As Only Three Dates For Hearing Were Fixed & That Too In The Peak Periods Of Filling Of Tax Audits, Income Tax Returns & Accordingly Assessee Was Busy In Filling His Audit Report /Itr & Had Seeked Adjournment Also In This Regard. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Cit (A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of 6 Lacs Under Section 68, When Ao Himself Admitting In The Assessment Order That The Difference Of 5% 'Was Applicable As Allowable Difference Between Circle Rate & Actual Rate Of Purchase Of Property. Hence Forth The Addition Of Rs 6 Lacs Should Have Been Deleted By Ao.

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69

144 dated 30.03.2022. The grounds of appeal are under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing ex- party order without providing adequate opportunity as only three dates for hearing were fixed and that too in the peak periods of filling of tax audits, income tax returns and accordingly assessee was busy

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 149/JAB/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

68,71,956 without appreciating that appellant is maintaining proper books of accounts and even otherwise appellant is entitled for deduction under section 80P of the act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to the deduction of Rs.6,35,489 claimed by the appellant under

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 151/JAB/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate & ShFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

68,71,956 without appreciating that appellant is maintaining proper books of accounts and even otherwise appellant is entitled for deduction under section 80P of the act. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to the deduction of Rs.6,35,489 claimed by the appellant under

M/S AMBAJEE JEWELLERS JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JABALPUR-1,, JABALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 21/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

For Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

section 144 and further erred in mentioning that assessee has produced partial purchase bills only during assessment proceeding 12. The revision order dated 19/01/2022 is bad in law for other reasons also hence may kindly be cancelled. 13. The assessee craves the leave to add or amend any ground of appeal.” 2. The facts of the case are that

BHUPENDRA SINGH,NARSINGHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NARSINGHPUR

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

ITA 141/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Bhupendra Singh V. The Income Tax Officer, 18, Bhabha Ward, Gadarawara Ward Narsinghpur, Narsinghpur (Mp)-487551. Narsinghpur (Mp)- 487001. Tan/Pan:Gbdps6826N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shailendra S. Thakur, Ca Shri Avinash Mishra, Ca Respondent By: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra S. Thakur, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

144 of the Income Tax Act, without affording reasonable opportunity and considering the reply / submission/ explanation and documents submitted during assessment proceeding the assessment order passed by AO may please be set aside to the file of assessing officer for fresh consideration. Page 2 of 5 3. That the CIT Appeal as well as assessing officer are not justified

AMARJEER PRASAD JAISWAL,SINGRAULI vs. ITO,SINGRAULI WARD, SINGRAULI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 50/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gadaleamarjeet Prasad Jaiswal, Vs Ito, Amarjeet Photocopy, Singrauli Ward, Chitrangi, Singrauli, Singrauli. Madhya Pradesh-486882 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Arzpa1544R Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/09/2023

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. 1 | P a g e 02. Because the Learned CITA has failed to associate the fact that the Appellant is engaged in the business of providing E Pay services of MP Online Limited & earning service charges thereon and whole of the cash deposited in the bank account stands fully explained

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. MADHYA PRADESH POWER GENERATING CO. LTD., JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 251/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

68,638 vide order u/s. 147 r/w s. 143(3) dated 21.3.2016. The same was further modified u/s.154 (on 11.01.2017) to bring on record the income under Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) regime at Rs. 817.29 lacs, which income had remained unchanged. The said reassessment and modification were not challenged in appeal', attaining finality. 2.2 In the penalty proceedings, initiated

ABHISHEK PUROHIT, SAGAR,SAGAR vs. ITO WARD (3) SAGAR, SAGAR

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/JAB/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Abhishek Purohit, Vs. Ito, Kotwali Road, Ward (3), Behind Putrishala School, Sagar Sagar. Pan : Asbpp 4859M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rahul Bardia, Ca Respondent By Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023

Section 144Section 234BSection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

Sections 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) and 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time. However, there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also proceeded to impose penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act amounting to Rs.10,000/- for non compliance. Thereafter

SHRI NITIN SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 25/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 263Section 7(1)

144, i.e., a best judgment assessment. Even no approval of the Jt. CIT, as required u/s. 153D, for an assessment u/s. 153A r/w s.153C, stands taken. The complete absence of the pre-requisites for initiating proceedings u/s. 153A(1) in case of a person other than the person searched would only imply that the assessment made is a regular assessment