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 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai113Delhi85Chennai29Kolkata27Bangalore26Hyderabad17Rajkot11Ahmedabad10Pune7Indore6Jaipur6Surat3Chandigarh3Cuttack2Karnataka1Nagpur1Jodhpur1Raipur1Ranchi1Lucknow1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 26317Section 143(3)5Section 194H5Section 115J4Section 1954Section 683Addition to Income3TDS3Disallowance3Section 250

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 538/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Tetuka, Adv., ARFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

68 with respect to the fresh unsecured loan taken by the appellant with respect to 53 parties out of 70 parties in respect of which the appellant had failed to produce the balance confirmation during the course of assessment proceedings despite repeated requests and follow-ups by the Appellant from the parties from whom the loan was taken directly

2
Section 36(1)(va)2
Condonation of Delay2

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 67/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Ms. Ishita Farsaiya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 191Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

section 194H in respect of discount allowed to the distributors on distribution of pre-paid SIM cards/talk time. 3. We have heard the ld. A/R as well as the ld. D/R and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that an identical issue was considered and decided by this bench of the Tribunal in assessee

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, (Adv.) &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

194H on three air time provided to\ndistributors and under section 194J on roaming charges paid to other\nnetwork operators. These issues were different from the subject matter of\nreassessment order. The Delhi High Court held that the subject matter is\ndifferent since the Commissioner has found error in regular assessment\norder, hence limitation shall commence for regular assessment

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

194H of the Act is shown at Rs 11564105/- but this amount does not include the commission paid to the directors. As per details filed by the assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings, vide reply dated 11.11.19, the payment of commission shown in clause 34(a) was to two concerns namely M/s Spencer Retails Ltd and M/s Universal enterprises

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

68,64,596/- pertaining to donation in the computation of income\nand further no deduction u/s 80G was claimed. Since the same was not\nactually paid in FY 2016-17, it has been reversed back during FY 2017-\n18 in the books of accounts. As the same was already disallowed and tax\nwas paid in AY 2017-18 and amount

SANGA AUTOMOBILES (P) LTD,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 7,, JAIPUR

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

ITA 911/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 144Section 250

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, [Here in after referred as “Act” ] by the AO. 2 Sanga Automobiles (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 2.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 249 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application