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.

119 results for “section 68”+ Section 4clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi10,855 Mumbai9,649 Kolkata3,216 Bangalore2,590 Ahmedabad2,229 Chennai2,179 Jaipur1,557 Hyderabad1,441 Pune1,331 Surat950 Chandigarh900 Indore843 Karnataka808 Cochin640 Rajkot495 Raipur460 Visakhapatnam421 Lucknow318 Nagpur298 Amritsar272 Agra256 Cuttack243 Guwahati234 Telangana165 Patna156 Calcutta152 Ranchi148 Jodhpur148 SC130 Jabalpur119 Panaji109 Dehradun106 Allahabad104 Varanasi50 Rajasthan22 Orissa13 Kerala13 Punjab & Haryana6 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5 Uttarakhand4 Gauhati3 Andhra Pradesh2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 Himachal Pradesh1 Tripura1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1 ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

TDS53 Exemption52 Addition to Income40 Section 143(3)38 Section 6824 Disallowance16 Section 26313 Section 143(2)12 Cash Deposit11 Section 154

PRADEEP SHARMA,SAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KATNI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 68

section 68, 69, I.T.A. No.4/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 4 69A, 69B, 69C, 69D of the Act. Where the provisions

SANJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL ,SATNA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE, SATNA

Showing 1–20 of 119 · Page 1 of 6

9

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

ITA 156/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Kumar Agarwal V. Acit Circle Satna Blooms Campus, Nh-75, Panna Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Road, Satna (Mp)-485001. Lines, Satna, Mp-485001. Tan/Pan:Ackpa2596H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sanjay Mishra, Adv Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 08 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Section 68 of the Act, treating the sale consideration of shares as unexplained cash credit. 4. The AO also

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)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' hereinafter) for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 vide order dated 12.09.2016. 2.1 The facts of the case, to the extent relevant, are that the assessee, a Government company in the business of power generation, filed its' return of income for the relevant year on 29/9/2009

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

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. He, therefore, added this amount back and initiated the proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 4

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

4) of section 80P.] 14. We find that, the ld. CIT(A) held that, Section 43B are applicable in the case where any sum as liability was payable by the assessee and was not paid on or before due date of filing of return for the relevant previous year. 15. In other words, any deduction otherwise allowable under

SUDEEP PANDYA L/H LLA JAYESH PANDEYA,CHHINDWARA vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR

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

ITA 36/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudeep Pandya L/H, Vs. Pr.Cit, Smt.Ila Jayesh Centralrevenuebuilding, Pandya, Napier Town, 14-15 Patni Jabalpur-482002, Complex, Madhya Pradesh. Parasiya Road, Chhindwara-480001 Madhya Pradesh. Pan/Gir No. : Ahkpp7408G Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri G.N Purohit.Sr.Adv & Smt.Uma Parashar. Adv.Ar Respondent By : Shri Saad Kidwai.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) Jabalpur Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Sudeep Pandya L/H Ila Jayesh Pandya Jabalpur. 1 The Learned Pcit Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Passing An Order Under Section 263 Against A Dead Person, The Notice Of Hearing Where Issued In The Name Of Deceased & Were Not Served On The Legal Here The Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Illegal Without Jurisdiction & Void Ab-Intio Same Should Be Placed Into Toto.

For Appellant: Shri G.N Purohit.Sr.Adv &For Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai.CIT-DR

Section 10Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

68 on account of various head on which tax was paid at normal income instead of provisions of section 115BBE, which was not levied. Sudeep Pandya L/H Ila Jayesh Pandya Jabalpur. 2.1 On going through the records, it has been noted that in the item. number 5f of Schedule A- Ol of ITR there was an amount of Rs.24

DEVENRA KUMAR GUPTA,REWA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 38/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Devendra Kumar Gupta V. Acit Circle Satna 17/304, Venkat Road, Ghoghar, Income Tax Office, Aaykar Rewa-486001. Bhawan, Civil Lines, Satna-485001. Pan: Ahapg6843Q (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: 18 09 2025 O R D E R

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

section 68 and mechanical order was passed which is bad in law . Page 2 of 6 4. The learned

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

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

section 68 of the Act. On further appeal before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that it purchased 794.060 Metric Ton (MT) of “MS Steel” for Rs.3,57,58,823/- from M/s. P.G.Enterprises and payment against the same was made through banking channel and the vary same goods had been sold to M/s. Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt.Ltd., Chindwara for Rs.3

SANJAY RATHI,CHHINDWARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHHINDWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 212/JAB/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur14 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad""./ Ita No. 212/Jab/2015 "" " " " " " " / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Sanjay Rathi, Income Tax Officer, Prop. Of M/S. Rathi Industries, Vs Chindwara-1, Sausar, Chhindwara (Mp) Chindwara (Mp) Pan : Acppr 7820 Q / (Appellant) / (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Shri. P.D. Chougule, Dr $ %&'/Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - Per Manish Borad:- This Appeal Of Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur Dated 11.08.2015 Vide Appeal No.J/Cit/A/I/Ito/W.1/Cwa/039/13-14, Arising Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Dated 11.03.2013 Framed By The Ito-1, Chhindwara.

For Appellant: Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri. P.D. Chougule, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

4. That there is no justification in confirming addition of Rs.15,000/- for alleged low household expenses. The addition should be quashed in toto. 5. Any other ground that may arise at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Apropos ground No.1 relating to alleged addition of Rs.27 lakhs under Section 68

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

ABDUL RAZAQUE,JABALPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 is allowed while ground nos

ITA 84/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Abdul Razaque, Vs. Acit, 903, Badi Omti, Jabalpur, M.P. Circle-2(1), Jabalpur Pan:Afgpr9967N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl Jcit(A), Mysore, Wherein The Ld. Addl Jcit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 19.11.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Addl/Jaddl Jcit(A)- Mysore Was Not Justified In Deciding The Legal Ground That Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass To Examine The Reasons Of (I) Return Filed After 7.11.2016' & Cash Deposit During Demonetization Period & Addition Was Made On Some Other Issue Which Was Not The Reason For Selection & Without Taking Any Approval From Higher Authorities. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) Addl/Jaddl Jcit(A)-Mysore Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 4,48,584 By Ignoring All The Evidences & Documents By Simply Observing That No New Documents Were Filed Even Though Documents Which Are Filed Are Sufficient & Self-Explanatory & The Order Of Learned Cit Appeals Is Passed In A Mechanical Manner, Without Any Application Of Mind & Appears That It Was Passed With Predetermined Mind.

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

4,48,584/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. He also made an addition of Rs. 10,200/- on account

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

68 of the Act without considering the reply filed by the appellant and by ignoring the debit entries in the bank account. Page 2 of 4 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.29,38,600/- made by the AO under section

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, holding the sales to be bogus and the credit on the said account to be unexplained. 4

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, holding the sales to be bogus and the credit on the said account to be unexplained. 4

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) , JABALPUR vs. SHRI DEEPAK JAISWAL, JABALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee on this ground is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR

section 68 by accepting the additional evidences which was never confronted to AO for cross examination? 3. Any other ground as may be adduced at the time of hearing. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of cross objection are as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) grossly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL, JABALPUR

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and cross both appeal of the Revenue and cross both appeal of the Revenue and cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 7/JAB/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Circle, Jabalpur, Shri Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, 291, Ramanth Building, Napier 01/32/33, Ashirwad Market, Town, Jabalpur-482001 Vs. Lordganj, Jabalpur-482001. Pan No. Achpa 7963 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Shiv Kumar, DR

section 68. In the inst 68. In the instant case also, there was sufficient cash balance ant case also, there was sufficient cash balance with the appellant as on 08.11.2016 which was deposited in bank with the appellant as on 08.11.2016 which was deposited in bank with the appellant as on 08.11.2016 which was deposited in bank account

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KATNI, KATNI vs. ADITYA AGRAWAL, KATNI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 200/JAB/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 V. Aditya Agrawal Near New Collectorate, Jhinjhiri- C/O. Shri Ram Food 483501. Product, Industrial Area Bargawan-483501. Pan:Amepa0405H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Badia, Ca Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Badia, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. It has also not been appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has failed to furnish Form 10DB as required by the Assessing Officer to establish the payment of Security Transaction Tax which would establish the genuinity of the share transaction. 2. Although the tax effect involved in this

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. SHRI SANDESH KUMAR JAIN, JABALPUR

In the result, the Revenue‟s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 41/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCA

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 28Section 68Section 69Section 69B

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, i.e., from residuary category w.e.f 01.04.2017. 2 | P a g e Asst. CIT vs. Sandesh Kumar Jain However, in the present case in hand, additional income was offered and even addition was made on account of under-invoicing of sale which was liable to be taxed under the head of income