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.

3 results for “section 68”+ Section 200Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Cochin154Indore107Bangalore87Chennai35Karnataka21Mumbai13Delhi13Rajkot4Jaipur3Ahmedabad2Kolkata2Agra2Uttarakhand1Jodhpur1Pune1SC1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 15410Section 139(9)6Section 249(2)5Section 54Section 234E3Section 200(3)2TDS2Limitation/Time-bar2

WHOLERY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

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

ITA 525/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 139(9)Section 154Section 154(1)(a)Section 44A

200A.] [(d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB.] 7 WHOLERY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA As per the provisions of section 154 (1)(a), the apparent mistake in order passed u/s 139(9) is duly rectifiable. Since, the CPC passed the order u/s 139(9) of the Act and there

CANTT BOARD,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 660/JPR/2017[2014-15 (F.Y. 2013-14 FORM 24Q-Q3 )]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2017
For Appellant: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONSFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Mallik (Addl.CIT)
Section 249(2)Section 282Section 282(2)Section 5Section 66A

200A w.e.f. 01/6/2015 only. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. Union of India (2015) 229 taxman 596 (Bom) while examining the constitutional validity of Section 234E has upheld the validity and also held as under: ITA 660 to 664/JP/2017_ 7 Cantt Board Vs ITO (TDS) 9. We have heard the learned counsel

SUBHASH CHAND NAWAL (HUF),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

ITA 1037/JPR/2017[2014-15 (26Q-Q1, 2, 3, 4TH)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2018
For Appellant: None (One set W.S. filed)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 192Section 200(3)Section 206CSection 234ESection 249(2)Section 5

200A by the Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01/6/2015. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia Vs. Union of India (2015) 229 taxman 596 (Bom) while examining the constitutional validity of Section 234E has upheld the validity and also held as under: 9. We have heard the learned counsel, and perused the papers and proceedings