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.

11 results for “section 68”+ Section 81clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,795Mumbai2,325Bangalore802Ahmedabad603Karnataka597Chennai556Jaipur446Kolkata400Hyderabad399Indore304Surat289Chandigarh271Pune221Cochin220Raipur191Visakhapatnam106Cuttack92Rajkot78Lucknow71Nagpur68Telangana68Calcutta61Allahabad41SC36Amritsar32Jodhpur26Agra24Ranchi24Guwahati20Patna16Jabalpur11Rajasthan8Orissa8Dehradun6Panaji3Uttarakhand2K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 80P10Addition to Income10Section 143(3)9Section 2509Section 1478Section 1488Section 2635Section 14A4Section 143(2)4Disallowance

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 is not sustainable. We therefore delete the same and allow ground No.3 of assessee's appeal. 16 | P a g e ACIT vs Shri Ram Kumar Suresh Kumar (vii) In the case of Megha S. Shah v DCIT [2013] 38 CCH 76 the hon'ble ITAT Ahemdabad 'C' Bench has held as under :- "11. We have heard

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

4
Deduction3
Limitation/Time-bar3

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

81,578/- during the financial year 2015-16 and Rs.1,13,37,168/- during the financial year 2016-17. Therefore, he reopened the case after recording reasons and obtaining the necessary approvals where required. The ld. AO records that subsequently, in compliance to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 4.05.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022

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

81,578/- during the financial year 2015-16 and Rs.1,13,37,168/- during the financial year 2016-17. Therefore, he reopened the case after recording reasons and obtaining the necessary approvals where required. The ld. AO records that subsequently, in compliance to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 4.05.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022

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

81[Explanation. In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this section,- (1) the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129; (ii) any period during which the immunity granted under section 245H remained in force; and (iii) any period during which a proceeding under

SMT HANSA SHAH,JABALPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1) JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

ITA 52/JAB/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

81 (Bom) which held, that even before assessment year 2008-09, when Rule 8D was not applicable, the ld. AO had to enforce the provisions of sub section (1) of section 14A. He, therefore, computed the value of the disallowance in Rule 8D r.w.s. 14A of the Act at Rs. 35,68

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

SHRI GOVIND RATHI, PROP. GOVIND DALL MILL,HOSHANGABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE ITARSI, ITARSI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/JAB/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Govind Rathi, Dy. Cit, Vs. Circle – Itarsi, Prop: Govind Dall Mill

Section 143(3)Section 68

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 vide order dated 13/2/2015. 2.1 The appeal raises two issues, which shall be taken up in seriatim. The first issue is in respect of two additions for Rs.4.00 lacs and Rs.1.50 lacs, i.e., at an aggregate of Rs.5.50 lacs

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)

81,13,439/- in Schedule No. 4 of profit & loss account. The addition made on fixed asset was annexed with Audited Report as chart "Addition Details (From Point No. 18)", there was an addition in Plant & Machinery @15% amounting to Rs.1,02,53,945/- and the depreciation claimed on it of Rs.15,38,092/-. The detail of machine i.e. date

AMBIKA CHARAN DIXIT,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 37/JAB/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

section 263 have not been fulfilled by the Pr. CIT which passed the order impugned. The learned counsel for the assessee has also produced paper book and drawn our attention to the assessment order and the documents produced thereon. 5. Per contra, learned D.R. submitted that as the Assessing Officer has not made proper enquiry regarding genuineness

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI ALOK RAJPUT, CHHINDWARA

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s CO, are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 56/JAB/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 68

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 13/12/2017) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Jabalpur (‘CIT(A)’ for short) vide order dated 28/3/2019. The assessee’s Cross Objection (CO) is supportive. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a partner, along with his mother, Vinesh Rajput