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 17(2)(iv)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,600Mumbai2,824Bangalore1,112Chennai664Ahmedabad660Karnataka642Jaipur632Kolkata531Hyderabad397Chandigarh366Surat356Indore278Pune250Cochin245Raipur159Visakhapatnam145Rajkot136Agra117Amritsar99Nagpur98Telangana95Cuttack92Lucknow71Calcutta62SC61Guwahati60Jodhpur40Panaji33Ranchi30Patna25Allahabad22Dehradun19Varanasi19Orissa10Rajasthan10Jabalpur6Kerala5Uttarakhand3Gauhati3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1Andhra Pradesh1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Punjab & Haryana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1

Key Topics

Section 12A5Addition to Income5Section 143(2)4TDS4Section 40A(3)3Section 682Section 143(3)2Section 133A2Section 43B2Disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. SHRI INDRABHAN SINGH RATHORE, NARSINGHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 234/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur08 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri. Aok Bhura, DRFor Respondent: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

2. The facts of the case are that the assessee, a Civil Contractor, filed a return of income of Rs.42,58,890/- on 30.09.2015. During the course of assessment proceedings under section 143(3), an addition of Rs.2,25,00,519/- was made with respect to unexplained unsecured loan. Before the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee submitted that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-SATNA, SATNA vs. M/S. RAM KUMAR SURESH KUMAR, SATNA

2

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 136/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gaaleasst. Commissioner Of Vs Shri Ram Kumar Income Tax, Circle-Satna, Suresh Kumar, Satna Birla Road, Satna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaffr3899D Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Fca Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 O R D E R Per Om Prakash Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 12.03.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Jabalpur [In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Raising Following Grounds:

Section 133(6)Section 68

2 | P a g e ACIT vs Shri Ram Kumar Suresh Kumar denied of having made any transactions with the assessee or having any credit balance with the assessee. This fact of the denial made in writing by the said party was confronted to the assessee. But the assessee contended that it had made purchases from said party through

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR vs. CHETANAYA PROMOTERS AND DEVLOPERS,, JABALPUR

In the result, on this ground, appeal of the Revenue as well as appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 133/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 292BSection 43C

68 ITR 240, and CIT v Bakelal Vaidya [1971] 79 ITR 594 and hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of CIT v Moped and Machines 2006] 281 ITR 52 and hon ble ITAT Jabalpur Bench decision in the case of ACIT v Thermoflics India [1997] 60 ITD 554 the ld CIT(A) was fully justified

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. ANAND MINING CORPORATION, JABALPUR

In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 104/JAB/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

17,918/- and office expense of Rs. 8,30,030/-. Out of these expenses, the auditor has treated expenses to the extent of Rs.7,30,00/- as personal expense and has disallowed the same while working out taxable income. The AO was of the opinion that 25% of the expenses debited under these heads are of personal nature and accordingly

INDIAN SOCIETY OF WEED SCIENCE,JABALPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXCEMPTION), BHOPAL

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

ITA 48/JAB/2025[-]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: Na Indian Society Of Weed V. Commissioner Of Income Science Tax (Exemption) Icar-Dwr Campus, Bhopal Maharajpur, Adhartal, Jabalpur-482004. Pan:Aaaai7305R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 02 2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 02 2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 12A

17,506/- (approx.58%) is treated as surplus (ii) AY 2023-24: against the total income of Rs. 96,94,639/-, the assessee has shown conference expenses to the extent of Rs.51,99,366/- and after considering general expenses of Rs. 6,61,909/-, an amount of Rs. 38,33,363/- (nearly 40% of the total receipts) is treated as surplus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-KATNI, KATNI vs. M/S. GAJRAJ MINING PVT. L:TD., SINGRAULI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee is dismissed

ITA 27/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT(DR)
Section 2Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the various addition/ disallowances admitting additional evidence without affording opportunity to Assessing Officer in violation of Rule 46A of 1. T. Rules. (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order