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.

2 results for “section 68”+ Section 151clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,649Mumbai1,105Karnataka484Jaipur355Bangalore264Chennai251Ahmedabad251Kolkata216Chandigarh178Hyderabad109Pune108Indore102Cochin91Raipur85Surat74Rajkot72Amritsar62Nagpur61Calcutta54Guwahati54Telangana44Lucknow43Visakhapatnam33Panaji29Cuttack27Agra23Jodhpur16Ranchi15SC15Dehradun10Allahabad9Patna8Orissa7Rajasthan6Jabalpur2Varanasi2Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 80P10Section 1488Section 1474Section 2502Section 143(2)2Deduction2TDS2Disallowance2Addition to Income2Limitation/Time-bar

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

151 of the IT Act and this issue is already decided by Hon'ble Apex court in the case of UOI Vs Rajeev Bansal and hence proceeding is liable to be quashed being invalid 8. The notice under section 148 of the IT Act is not according to law as it was issued by non-Jurisdictional AO and further

2

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

151 of the IT Act and this issue is already decided by Hon'ble Apex court in the case of UOI Vs Rajeev Bansal and hence proceeding is liable to be quashed being invalid 8. The notice under section 148 of the IT Act is not according to law as it was issued by non-Jurisdictional AO and further