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.

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 20A(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Lucknow23Ahmedabad21Mumbai16Indore14Delhi12Kolkata9Bangalore8Jaipur8Agra6Hyderabad6Pune6Chandigarh5Nagpur4Varanasi4Cochin3Allahabad3Raipur2Guwahati1SC1Telangana1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 12A8Section 11(2)8Section 80G7Section 10(20)6Exemption5Section 2504Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3Section 683Section 3

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

c). Without appreciating the facts that\nassessee maintenance regular book of accounts and day to day stock records (d).\nWithout doubting opening stock, purchases and sales (e). On mistaken belief of\nquantum of cash deposits and cash sales made during demonetisation, Which is\nhighly unjustified, illegal and liable to be quashed entirely.\n2. Assessee deserves right to amend, alter, delete

ARYA SAMAJ MANDIR ,BHILWARA vs. CIT(E) , JAIPUR

2
House Property2
Deduction2

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1015/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80G

68-71), in response to which the assessee filed a detailed\nrepliesdt. 21.03.2022& 10.06.2024 (PB 72-74& 79-82 respectively).Unfortunately, however, the\nCIT(E) without consider the same, again rejected the application for registration u/s 12AAvide\nimpugned order on dt. 27.06.2024, on various new grounds (which were not raised during the 1st\nround) i.e (a) Non-genuineness of activities

ACIT, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE , JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 717/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

20A) of the Act directly dealing with the facts of the matter was also abolished w.e.f A.Y 2003-04. Thereafter, the assessee chosen for registration u/s. 12A of the Act, which was denied to the assessee hence the assessee, is in appeal before us. We have gone through the order of authorities below and various judicial pronouncements relied upon

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST (NOW KOTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY),KOTA vs. DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the assessee’s income is found to be not chargeable under the Income Tax Act at all and the AO is directed to delete the additions made, irrespective of the head of income

ITA 811/JPR/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalacit, Exemption, Circle, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Prakul Khurana, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 250

20A) of the Act directly dealing with the facts of the matter was also abolished w.e.f A.Y 2003-04. Thereafter, the assessee chosen for registration u/s. 12A of the Act, which was denied to the assessee hence the assessee, is in appeal before us. We have gone through the order of authorities below and various judicial pronouncements relied upon

UNIT IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHARATPUR,BHARATPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 949/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Agarwal, CA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, ld. DR
Section 10(20)Section 11(2)Section 250Section 3

20A) of the Act directly dealing with the facts of the matter was also abolished w.e.f A.Y 2003-04. Thereafter, the assessee chosen for registration u/s. 12A of the Act. We have gone through the order of authorities below and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the assessee. In addition to the above documents, we have gone through the Urban

UNIT IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BHARATPUR,BHARATPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 950/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Tarun Agarwal, CA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Ojha, CIT, ld. DR
Section 10(20)Section 11(2)Section 250Section 3

20A) of the Act directly dealing with the facts of the matter was also abolished w.e.f A.Y 2003-04. Thereafter, the assessee chosen for registration u/s. 12A of the Act. We have gone through the order of authorities below and various judicial pronouncements relied upon by the assessee. In addition to the above documents, we have gone through the Urban

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

ITA 771/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

section 69C of the Act. S No Particulars Amount (INR) A For alleged excess stock at factory premises of the Assessee at Plot No H 68,04,689 20A, RIICO Industrial Area, Kukas B For alleged excess stock at residence of the director of the Appellant Mr 15,79,200 Ashok Agarwal C For alleged excess stock at Shubham

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

c) Further, the statement of above staff members were confronted to director of the assessee company, Shri Narendrasingh Laxmansingh Rathod vide his statement recorded u/s 132(4) dated 04-08-2017 wherein in reply to question no. 12 he vehemently admitted that he is agreed with the statement of Shri Om Prakash Sharma that the process of issuance of 1