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 105clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi964Mumbai723Karnataka557Bangalore228Chennai217Ahmedabad206Indore190Jaipur164Kolkata163Chandigarh139Hyderabad134Cochin80Pune73Raipur53Calcutta52Telangana48Rajkot45Surat41Lucknow32Guwahati28Visakhapatnam27Allahabad24SC21Cuttack20Nagpur20Jodhpur8Agra8Patna7Rajasthan7Amritsar7Orissa6Varanasi4Dehradun3Panaji2Ranchi1Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 153C12Section 153A12Section 1329Section 143(3)8Addition to Income8Section 2507Section 145(3)7Section 292C3Section 69A3Natural Justice

SITA DEVI CHOUDHARY,AHORE JALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALORE

In the result, stands allowed

ITA 115/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Cit(A) Challenging The Additions Made By The Ao. The Ld.Cit(A) Upheld Both The Additions Made By Observing-

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

section 68 as under – (28) That another fact is that the H That another fact is that the Hon’ble Commissioner Appeal while passing order on’ble Commissioner Appeal while passing order had duly acknowledged that copies of confirmation of accounts was duly furnished but had duly acknowledged that copies of confirmation of accounts was duly furnished

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 709/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed
3
ITAT Jodhpur
26 May 2025
AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

68, Section 69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the Revenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry provider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is no ground/material to form reasonable belief

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 706/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

section 145 are not found to\nbe relevant in the facts of this case. The AO has not disturbed the book results as the cash\ntransactions are not part of regular books of accounts.\nThe ld CIT(A) has also tried to distinguish the decisions relied upon. Thus on the\nbasis of above observations the ld. CIT(A) confirmed

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDIAPUR, UDAIPUE

ITA 707/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

68, Section\n69A, Section 69B, Section 69C or any other provisions of the Act. It is not the case of the\nRevenue that the Petitioner has paid any cash to the so-called accommodation entry\nprovider to obtain the accommodation entry to plough back own funds, hence, there is\nno ground/material to form reasonable belief

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. ANJANA CONSTRUCTION, CHITTORGARH

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 313/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Respondent: Shri Sakar Sharma
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 292C

105 x 140 ft.) 14700 sq. ft. commercial land situated at Pratapgarh to Sh. Chandra Prakash Somani and Sh. Shripal. As per the seized loose paper Sh. Manohar Lal Anjana has taken advance from the said party, amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- and remaining amount of Rs. 3,96,00,000/- will be received before 15th June

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 455/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Respondent: Shri Sakar Sharma
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 292C

105 x 140 ft.) 14700 sq. ft. commercial land situated at Pratapgarh to Sh. Chandra Prakash Somani and Sh. Shripal. As per the seized loose paper Sh. Manohar Lal Anjana has taken advance from the said party, amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- and remaining amount of Rs. 3,96,00,000/- will be received before 15th June

ANJANA CONSTRUCTION,NIMBAHERA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 453/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Respondent: Shri Sakar Sharma
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 292C

105 x 140 ft.) 14700 sq. ft. commercial land situated at Pratapgarh to Sh. Chandra Prakash Somani and Sh. Shripal. As per the seized loose paper Sh. Manohar Lal Anjana has taken advance from the said party, amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/- and remaining amount of Rs. 3,96,00,000/- will be received before 15th June

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

sections is mandatory but consequential to Income. The A O is directed to allow consequential relief to the assessee while giving effect to this appeal order. 9 The fifth ground of appeal is as under "The Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings uis 274 and 271(1)(C) 9.1 The initiation of penalty is not appealable