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.

46 results for “section 68”+ Section 250(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,606Delhi2,072Kolkata1,045Bangalore646Ahmedabad576Jaipur574Chennai503Karnataka443Surat369Chandigarh290Hyderabad283Pune245Raipur200Indore176Amritsar166Cochin164Rajkot156Guwahati131Lucknow89Nagpur86Patna79Visakhapatnam71Allahabad66Panaji58Cuttack53Calcutta52Jodhpur46Agra46Telangana41Dehradun26Jabalpur26Ranchi22SC13Varanasi10Rajasthan7Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income39Section 153A33Section 14832Section 143(3)31Section 6831Section 25031Section 13221Section 14716Section 80P(2)(d)16Natural 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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- Sita Devi Choudhary, Jalore 1. Incorrect invocation of section 69A and non-consideration of submission/evidence filed by the assessee. 2. Incorrect invocation of section 68 and non-consideration of submission/evidence filed by the assessee. 2. Succinctly

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. M/S. PLAZA TEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3

12
Disallowance10
Deduction7
ITA 447/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Mohan, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

4 of 8 ITA No.- 447/Jodh/2018 Plaza Tex (India) Pvt. Ltd. suspicion or doubt. I am of the considered view that no addition can be made u/s 68 merely on the basis of suspicion or doubt, especially when the appellant has furnished every documentary evidence to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share applicants and genuineness of the transactions

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

ITA 70/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2016-17. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,Hanumangarh, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 2 Assessment Years

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

ITA 71/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2016-17. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,Hanumangarh, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 2 Assessment Years

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

ITA 69/JODH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2016-17. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,Hanumangarh, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 2 Assessment Years

M/S. HANUMANGARH KENDRIYA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,HANUMANGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BIKANER

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed andthe order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to thecontrary are set aside

ITA 68/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2016-17. The impugned orders were emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1,Hanumangarh, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 68 to 71/Jodh/2022 2 Assessment Years

SHRI BHANWAR LAL,JODHPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result the appeals of the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 417/JODH/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mitha Lal Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 250Section 68

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act'), for Assessment Year 2013-14 to 2018-19, date of order 04/03/2025 & for AY 2019-20, date of order 05/03/2025. The impugned orders emanated from the order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax/ DC Cen CIR-1, JDH, (in short, ‘Ld.AO') passed under section

LIFE CARE HOSPITAL,SIROHI vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 938/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 2 Life Care Hospital, Abu Road, Sirohi. 1. Your appellant is a partnership firm and having multispecialty hospital at Tatoli Road, Aburoad, Dist. Sirohi (Rajasthan). 2. Your appellant filed their Return of Income on 25.10.2017 declaring total income

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1.The CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without considering the grounds of the assessee regarding reopening of assessment. 2. The CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee without discussing and considering

M/S BHAGIRATH DAIRY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGAUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NAGAUR

The appeal is allowed

ITA 755/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 44Section 68Section 69Section 69A

section 68 of the act and and added to the income of the assessee. In addition to the cash-credits, the AO has further made addition of Rs. 8,56,000/- u/s 69A of the by treating the deposit in the name of Sh. Mohan Ram Choudhary and Smt.Tulchi Devi

OM PRAKASH BISHU,KUCHAMAN CITY vs. DCIT, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/JODH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2023AY 2019-20
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 142A(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 69B

68,920/- 2018-19 Rs. 1,29,46,152/- Rs. 4,61,80,190/- 2019-20 Rs. 12,04,359/- Rs. 42,96,065/- Total Investment (In Rs.) Rs. 2,51,44,716/- Rs. 8,96,93,660/- 3.1 For the year under consideration the ld. DVO estimated the value at Rs. 4,61,80,190/- and in the books

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

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. The grounds and revised grounds raised in these appeals are being reproduced as under :-2 ITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024 Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. In ITA No. 706/Jodh/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 “Ground No.1: The impugned order u/s 153A r.w.s

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

ITA 709/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2016-17

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

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

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. The grounds and revised grounds raised in these appeals are being reproduced as under :- Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. In ITA No. 706/Jodh/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 “Ground No.1: The impugned order u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the I.T. Act,1961 dated

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

ITA 708/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. The grounds and revised grounds raised in these appeals are being reproduced as under :- 2 ITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024 Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. In ITA No. 706/Jodh/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 “Ground No.1: The impugned order u/s 153A r.w.s

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

250 of the I.T.\nAct, 1961, for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. The\ngrounds and revised grounds raised in these appeals are being reproduced as under\n:-\n2\nITA Nos. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024\nAshiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur.\nIn ITA No. 706/Jodh/2024 A.Y. 2013-14\n“Ground No.1: The impugned order u/s 153A r.w.s

ASHOK PANWAR HUF,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assesses ITA No

ITA 56/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for brevity, the "Act"] for the Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16, date of orders 20/12/2023 and 17/07/2023, respectively. The impugned orders emanated from the order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3, Jodhpur [for brevity, the "Ld. AO"] passed under section 143(3) of the Act, date

CREATIVE PROPMART PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

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

ITA 117/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 68

4. It is thus obvious on the plain language of section 250 of the Act that date and place of hearing was duly fixed. The assessee was also given notice along with notice to the Assessing Officer. The assessee had ample opportunity to make his submissions by appearing in person or through authorised representative. Despite fixing the case

VINAY MITTAL,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR

The appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 382/JODH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blevinay Mittal Income Tax Officer, 3, J Block, Sriganganagar (Raj.) Ward No. -1, Ward No. 1 Keshrisinghpur Sriganganagar Sriganganagar Pan No. Avopm6894P Assessee By Shri Virendra Jain, Advocate (Physical) Revenue By Shri P.M. Mirdha, Addl. Cit- Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The Nfac/ Cit (A)] Dated 22.03.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 280Section 44ASection 68

250 of IT Act were issued to the appellant through ITBA(A), which amounts to service of notice as provided under Section 280 of the Act. However, there has been no 4 response of the appellant. Accordingly, he held that in view of the aforesaid non-compliance on the part of the appellant, instant appeal is adjudicated

DR. MANISH CHHAPARWAL ,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

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

ITA 53/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Kothari, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 250

250 of the IT Act, 1961 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur is bad in law, illegal and void. 2. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur has erred in affirming the order of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Udaipur in making addition of Rs.19,50,000/- on account

SANTOSH SHARMA,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JODHPUR

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

ITA 859/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Moved A Condonation Petition Explaining That The Delay Was Caused Due To Non-Receipt Of Communication From The Earlier Representative, Who Neither Apprised The Assessee Of The Appellate Outcome Nor Advised Timely Remedial Action. It Has Been Further Submitted That Upon Obtaining Knowledge Of The Order, The Assessee Promptly Engaged New Counsel & Has Been Diligently Pursuing The Matter. A Prayer Was Made To Condone The Delay In The Interest Of Justice.

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anuradha, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2012–13, whereby various additions made under section 68 of the Act were sustained. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 217 days in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has moved a condonation petition explaining that the delay