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.

122 results for “section 68”+ Section 275(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi627Karnataka500Mumbai387Ahmedabad161Bangalore147Jaipur122Cochin117Chennai103Kolkata87Hyderabad81Raipur77Chandigarh71Surat54Pune41Indore29Lucknow19Calcutta18Nagpur15Patna14Jodhpur11Cuttack11Telangana10Rajkot9Visakhapatnam7SC7Agra4Rajasthan4Amritsar4Panaji3Allahabad3Guwahati3Jabalpur2Orissa1Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)98Section 271D81Section 26370Section 271A65Section 271E64Section 153A58Addition to Income56Section 13230Section 133A30Penalty

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 406/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271A

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assessee 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

Showing 1–20 of 122 · Page 1 of 7

26
Survey u/s 133A16
Search & Seizure15

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 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. 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

Section 275 (1) (iii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st January,\n2013. Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly barred by\nlimitation.\"\n12\nITA Nos.1057 to 1061/JP/2025\nDCIT vs. Sh. Ashwani Gupta\nIn view of the ratio laid down

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

Section 275 (1) (iii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st January,\n2013. Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly barred by\nlimitation.\"\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. 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

Section 275 (1) (iii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st January,\n2013. Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly barred by\nlimitation.\"\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. 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

Section 275 (1) (iii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st January,\n2013. Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly barred by\nlimitation.\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. 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

Section 275 (1) (iii) of the Act began to\nrun on 23rd July, 2012 and the last date for passing the penalty orders was 31st January,\n2013. Therefore, the penalty orders issued on 26th February 2013 were clearly barred by\nlimitation.\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 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 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 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 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

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

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 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

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

ITA 991/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 119Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271A

275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— 16 M/s Rambhajo’s vs. ACIT (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 or the date on which

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1375/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

275 of the IT Act whereas the penalty under section 271AAB has to be imposed only when the income disclosed by the assessee falls in the ambit of undisclosed income as defined under section 271AAB of the Act. The definition of undisclosed income contemplates various forms and the primary condition is that the income of the specified previous

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

ITA 1008/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2024AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT D/R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271ASection 274Section 68

68 of the IT Act, 1961. Accordingly, the AO issued show cause notice dated 21.12.2018 requiring the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under section 271AAB(1)(a)/271AAB(1)(c) should not be initiated against the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(c) of Rs. 33,00,000/- vide penalty order

SHRI AESHWARYA JAIN,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1129/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1129/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke Shri Aeshwarya Jain The Dcit Vs. 65, Shopping Centre Central Circle Kota Kota Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Abjpj 3114 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms.Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28-06-2019 Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Udaipur Arising From Penalty Order Passed U/S 271Aab Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S 271Aab Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Which Is Void Ab Inito Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Chanchal Meena, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 69

68,700/- including the surrendered income of Rs. 10.00 lacs. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the of the Act at the returned income. However, the AO held that income of Rs. 10.00 lacs is assessable u/s 69 of the Act and therefore, the same is taxable

RASAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

ITA 287/JPR/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Us. 2 M/S Rasal Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Shivpuri (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhari (Addl.CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

275(1), then the relevant dates would be: a) either on or by 31.03.2008, or b) on or by 31.03.2011, whichever is later. Hence, the order of penalty ,as far as addition of Rs. 2,79,000/- and of Rs. 10,05,301/- confirmed by the CIT(A) was concerned, should have been passed, in any case