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.

38 results for “section 68”+ Section 271Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur38Delhi26Mumbai26Karnataka21Chennai20Hyderabad16Ahmedabad16Indore12Pune11Visakhapatnam10Agra8Kolkata8Surat7Bangalore6Chandigarh5Rajkot4Ranchi3Jabalpur2Nagpur2Cuttack2SC1Cochin1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 271D98Section 271E77Section 153A58Penalty23Addition to Income19Section 143(3)14Section 271B14Section 269S13Limitation/Time-bar9Section 250

KANHIAYA LAL SAIN,JAIPUR vs. JCIT RANGE-7 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the Appeals of the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 1022/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271Section 271DSection 271E

271E of the Act is warranted. Accordingly, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.” Also refer ACIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) & ANR. vs. Kanchumarthi Venkata Sita Ramchandra Rao & ANR. ITA No. 245 & 246/Viz/2020 (C.O. No. 12 & 13/Viz/2021) August 30, 2022 (2022) 65 CCH 0549 Visakhapatnam Trib KANHIYA LAL SAIN VS JCIT, RANGE-7, JAIPUR 2. Reasonable cause : The seller

MANPHOOL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

Showing 1–20 of 38 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 143(2)7
Business Income5

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dev Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 271B

68[or section 44BB orsection 44BBB], as the case may be, and the assessee has claimed his income to be lower than the profits or gains so deemed to be the profits and gains of his business, as the case may be, during such 69 [previous year,] ] The following clause (iv) shall be inserted after clause

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1167/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to run on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st January, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly barred by limitation." In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1170/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to run on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st January, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly barred by limitation." In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1164/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013. Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1176/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1165/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1168/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1178/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 1169/JPR/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

Section 275 (1) (ii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st\nJanuary, 2013 Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly\nbarred by limitation.\"\nIn view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hissaria

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S GOKUL KRIPA COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

ITA 1177/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

section 263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of\nthe month in which such order of revision is passed,\n(c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the\ncourse of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed

JAGAT SINGH RATHORE,TONK vs. ITO WD 7(2), , JAIPUR

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

ITA 139/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

section 68 cannot be invoked. There apart, the assessee has already furnished the confirmatory affidavit of the creditors and notably statement of those persons was recorded wherein they duly admitted the fact of making contribution by giving cash to the appellant and also explained the source being income from agriculture. However, the rejection of such a confirmation and source

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 184/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Suhani Maharwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40ASection 40aSection 68

Section 36(1) specifically disallows the interest payment on borrowed funds taken to purchase fixed assets upto the period before put to use. Since no funds were borrowed and no interest was paid the disallowance is illegal and to be quashed. Your honour, here I want to place the decision of Hon`ble high court of Rajasthan in case

GURJANT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri S. K.Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 44ASection 68

68, 69, 694,698,69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assesse in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115BBE has been paid on or before

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 1233/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271D

section 269 SS will not be applicable. Although addition w/s 68 or provisions of sec.269SS are independent provisions but if the alleged income is held to be deemed income of the assessee, the penalty u/s 271D could not be invoked." 22 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar DIT(Exemptions) Vs. Young Men Christian Association

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1061/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1057/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1060/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1059/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: \nShri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: \nMrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SH. ASHWANI GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1058/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 269SSection 269TSection 271D

68,450/- against the aforesaid carried\nforward cash loans and cash loans taken during the year, which is also in violation\nto the provisions of section 269T of the I.T. Act, 1961. Also it is noted that\nassessment order in this case was passed on 23.03.2024. The Addi/Jt. CIT finally\nsummarized in the penalty order that the assessee