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.

78 results for “section 68”+ Section 364clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka440Mumbai431Delhi353Chennai115Jaipur78Bangalore62Ahmedabad54Hyderabad40Chandigarh37Kolkata37Calcutta35Raipur20Lucknow19Indore18Surat15Cuttack10Visakhapatnam8Patna8Pune8Agra6Telangana6Cochin5Rajkot5Guwahati5Amritsar4SC4Kerala2Nagpur2Varanasi1Allahabad1Andhra Pradesh1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 271E72Addition to Income63Section 153A61Section 271D57Section 143(3)56Section 14739Section 13233Section 133A28Search & Seizure24Section 68

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, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent

Showing 1–20 of 78 · Page 1 of 4

23
Penalty14
Survey u/s 133A10

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1232/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

68, but since the appellant has not maintained books of accounts, the addition was not sustainable. 11 However, I need to examine the applicability s. 69. 69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1222/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 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

68, but since the appellant has not maintained books of accounts, the addition was not sustainable. 11 However, I need to examine the applicability s. 69. 69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1223/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

68, but since the appellant has not maintained books of accounts, the addition was not sustainable. 11 However, I need to examine the applicability s. 69. 69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1231/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 127Section 132Section 139Section 153A

68, but since the appellant has not maintained books of accounts, the addition was not sustainable. 11 However, I need to examine the applicability s. 69. 69A. 69B or 69C etc. In this regard, on my query to the appellant, ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that since there is no finding that the appellant has also incurred certain expenses

GEETA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WD 1(4), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

68 of the Act and thereby assessed as such. A propose this ground the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under : Regarding the addition of Rs.6.45,810, which represents additional income offered by the appellant through revised computation and return, this amount stems from interest income of Rs.11.21.649 as per Form 26AS. According to the appellant

SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2024[2005-06]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

68 of the Act and thereby assessed as such. A propose this ground the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is as under : Regarding the addition of Rs.6.45,810, which represents additional income offered by the appellant through revised computation and return, this amount stems from interest income of Rs.11.21.649 as per Form 26AS. According to the appellant

M/S. SHRI NATH CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee and that of the revenue stands

ITA 117/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 145(3)

section 143(2) of the Act dated 29- 01-2018 was issued and served upon the Assessee on 30-01-2018. Information and details pertaining to the case of the assessee relevant to assessment of its income were called for u/s 142(1) of the Act by means of a questionnaire and/or Order Sheet Entries wherever deemed

DCIT, CC-2,, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee and that of the revenue stands

ITA 182/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 145(3)

section 143(2) of the Act dated 29- 01-2018 was issued and served upon the Assessee on 30-01-2018. Information and details pertaining to the case of the assessee relevant to assessment of its income were called for u/s 142(1) of the Act by means of a questionnaire and/or Order Sheet Entries wherever deemed

SHRI NARESH JHANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, JAIPUR

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

ITA 259/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 199CSection 292CSection 68

68 of the Act is illegal and bad in law. 2. It is submitted that u/s 4 of the Act, income tax is to be charged in respect of total income of the previous year of every person. As per section 5 of the Act income of a person resident in India includes all income from whatever source derived

SHRI NARESH JHANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, JAIPUR

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

ITA 260/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 199CSection 292CSection 68

68 of the Act is illegal and bad in law. 2. It is submitted that u/s 4 of the Act, income tax is to be charged in respect of total income of the previous year of every person. As per section 5 of the Act income of a person resident in India includes all income from whatever source derived

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

364/- with M/s Bhagwat Marcom Pvt. Ltd, M/s Coolhut Marketing Pvt. Ltd, M/s Gabarial Tieup Pvt Ltd, M/s Neelgagan suppliers Pvt ltd, M/s Outlook Vintrade Pvt Ltd, M/s Subhrashi Enclave Pvt ltd and M/s Viewmore Developers Pvt. Ltd, is genuine despite accepting that these companies are engaged in some suspicious activity and indulged in illegal activity and ignoring that

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1532/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh.Deepak Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 133A of the Act, without any\nindependent corroborative evidence or material substantiating such addition, is legally\nunsustainable and devoid of merit. The settled position of law, consistently upheld by\nvarious judicial forums including the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Courts, and\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunals, categorically holds that statements obtained during\nsurvey operations lack evidentiary value and cannot

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRATEEK KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Prithviraj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132(4)Section 68

section 115BBE of the I.T.Act, 1961 no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act. 4.10 Further, it has been claimed by the assessee that he has paid interest of Rs. 8,10,000/- and Rs. 104,301/- to M/s Mehul Gems Private Limited and M/s Ankita

CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 66/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Joint CIT, Ld
Section 10(38)Section 139(4)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 69C

section 68 or not. In the case of NR Portfolio, it was held that the genuineness and credibility are deeper and obtrusive. Similarly, the bank statements provided by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions cannot be considered in view of the judgment of Hon'ble court in the case of Pratham Telecom India Pvt. Ltd., wherein

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

ITA 872/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since the original assessments were made and it was open to the\nIncome Tax Officer to make that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

ITA 873/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

364/- with M/s Bhagwat Marcom Pvt. Ltd, M/s Coolhut\nMarketing Pvt. Ltd, M/s Gabarial Tieup Pvt Ltd, M/s Neelgagan suppliers Pvt ltd,\nM/s Outlook Vintrade Pvt Ltd, M/s Subhrashi Enclave Pvt ltd and M/s Viewmore\nDevelopers Pvt. Ltd, is genuine despite accepting that these companies are\nengaged in some suspicious activity and indulged in illegal activity and ignoring\nthat

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

364/- with M/s Bhagwat Marcom Pvt. Ltd, M/s Coolhut\nMarketing Pvt. Ltd, M/s Gabarial Tieup Pvt Ltd, M/s Neelgagan suppliers Pvt ltd,\nM/s Outlook Vintrade Pvt Ltd, M/s Subhrashi Enclave Pvt ltd and M/s Viewmore\nDevelopers Pvt. Ltd, is genuine despite accepting that these companies are\nengaged in some suspicious activity and indulged in illegal activity and ignoring\nthat

M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 1027/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2019AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 153Section 68

68 of the Act. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that even otherwise the assessee has produced all relevant documentary evidence in support of its claim and to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the share applicant and genuineness of the transaction. He has referred to the relevant documentary evidence filed by the assessee which are placed at page

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S ORIENTAL POWER CABLES LTD., KOTA

ITA 1211/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2019AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 153Section 68

68 of the Act. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that even otherwise the assessee has produced all relevant documentary evidence in support of its claim and to establish the identity, creditworthiness of the share applicant and genuineness of the transaction. He has referred to the relevant documentary evidence filed by the assessee which are placed at page