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.

115 results for “section 68”+ Section 7clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi10,216 Mumbai8,820 Kolkata2,772 Bangalore2,521 Ahmedabad2,072 Chennai1,984 Jaipur1,461 Hyderabad1,360 Pune1,270 Surat900 Chandigarh858 Indore797 Karnataka789 Cochin607 Raipur457 Rajkot453 Visakhapatnam411 Nagpur282 Lucknow267 Amritsar256 Agra238 Cuttack231 Guwahati209 Telangana157 Jodhpur135 Patna135 Ranchi132 SC118 Jabalpur115 Calcutta103 Allahabad101 Panaji97 Dehradun94 Varanasi48 Rajasthan22 Orissa13 Kerala13 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5 Uttarakhand4 Punjab & Haryana3 Gauhati3 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2 Himachal Pradesh1 Tripura1 HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1 ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

TDS54 Exemption53 Addition to Income38 Section 143(3)37 Section 6820 Disallowance16 Section 26313 Section 143(2)12 Section 1549 Section 37(1)

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

Sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, or 69D of the I.T.A. No.4/JAB/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 7 Act, nor is there

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

Showing 1–20 of 115 · 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

68. 7 Since loans received Rs. 20,00,000/- are genuine and borrowed for the purpose of business, Ld CIT (A) erred in disallowing interest Rs. 1,93,050/- paid thereon. 8 Considering the fact that interest Rs. 10,286/- paid by the assessee on the late deposit of TDS is compensatory in nature and its disallowance is not provided

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

section 68. It was submitted that the learned Assessing Officer had been asked to issue summons during the assessment proceedings but had not done so. Furthermore, these creditors were related to business and details in respect of them had been submitted. Furthermore, these were not unsecured loans but secured creditors and these secured loans were lying deposited with departments

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 Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) of NFAC New Delhi was not justified in confirming the action of AO without appreciating the fact that appellant have duly filed the figures of earlier year also and further there was sufficient cash balance

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

Section 68 of the Act, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that even though evidences were filed to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the cash creditors, but during the cross-examination the alleged cash creditors did not accept to have provided loans. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities

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

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

68,21,182/- to the income of the assessee u/s. 69A as unexplained money. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order dated 10.12.2019 is without jurisdiction, bad in law and liable to be quashed.3 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order is opposed

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

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

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

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, holding the sales to be bogus and the credit on the said account to be unexplained. 4. Aggrieved with the said assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals with the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC records the fact that he issued four notices to the assessee on the email ID POTDAR.audit1@gmail.com

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, holding the sales to be bogus and the credit on the said account to be unexplained. 4. Aggrieved with the said assessment orders, the assessee filed appeals with the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC records the fact that he issued four notices to the assessee on the email ID POTDAR.audit1@gmail.com

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

7. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147 of the Act without appreciating that notice issued under section 148 of the act is invalid as it was issued after 01.04.2021 and as per amended act the approval given by the PCIT is invalid in view of section

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

7. The AO was not justified in passing order under section 147 of the Act without appreciating that notice issued under section 148 of the act is invalid as it was issued after 01.04.2021 and as per amended act the approval given by the PCIT is invalid in view of section

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

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

7 CO No. 05/ JAB/2020 Gajraj Mining P Ltd. of this section, shall be allowed if such interest has been actually paid and any interest referred to in that clause which has been converted into a loan or advance shall not be deemed to have been actually paid. Explanation 4.— For the purposes of this section, — (a) "public

UMAKANT RAJORIYA,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, SAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 82/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur19 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 68

7,89,320/- as against return of income of Rs. 2,89,320/-. The I.T.A. No.82/JAB/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 2 assessee carried the matter in appeal before learned CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 24.03.2024, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the first appellate authority. Now the assessee

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

68, 69 thro‟ 69D, the amount under reference may not stand to be assessed as income and, in any case, as the income of the relevant year. The non-detection of any income; rather, source of income, in the documents found and impounded during survey, on which much store was placed by Shri Bardia during hearing, rather, favours the Revenue

VICKY NAVANI,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR, WARD )), JABALPUR

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

ITA 124/JAB/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 253(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 273BSection 275Section 44A

7 Though this is in context of different section, but underlying law is well settled that the mandatory requirements of those conditions must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, though at times, some latitude can be shown, if there is a failure to comply with some requirements which are directory in nature, the non- compliance of which would not affect

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