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.

5 results for “section 68”+ Section 272clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka456Delhi428Mumbai413Kolkata109Bangalore101Chennai100Ahmedabad86Jaipur75Cochin38Pune34Panaji31Chandigarh27Indore27Surat25Lucknow24Raipur23Hyderabad19Patna18Visakhapatnam18Calcutta18Nagpur17Rajkot17Guwahati16SC8Jodhpur5Telangana4Rajasthan3Cuttack3Amritsar3Andhra Pradesh1Dehradun1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 35A22Section 1489Section 54F6Addition to Income5Section 801A(7)4Section 1544Deduction4Disallowance4Section 80J3Section 139

SUNIL PAGARIA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234Section 54F

68-69 of has been an impediment to the allowance of the PB wrongly deduction under Section 54/54F. It is neither distinguished expressly prohibited." by Ld. CIT(A) 2. Smt. Hansabaisanghvi v/s ITO ; (2004) 89 ITD (Hyd) 239 Para 4.2.3 at he assesee utilized the sale proceeds on of Para 8,9, & No adverse

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

3
Section 143(3)3
Limitation/Time-bar3
ITA 545/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

Section 139Section 148Section 35ASection 801A(7)Section 80J

272 (Pune) it was held that where the audit report was filed even at the appellate state the same should be considered and deduction cannot be disallowed. Similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Kolkata high court in case of CIT Vs. Magnum Exports Private Limited 262 ITR 10, wherein while considering the claim of the assessee under section

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 544/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18
Section 139Section 148Section 35ASection 801A(7)Section 80J

272 (Pune) it was held that where\nthe audit report was filed even at the appellate state the same should be\nconsidered and deduction cannot be disallowed. Similar issue was considered by\nthe Hon'ble Kolkata high court in case of CIT Vs. Magnum Exports Private Limited\n262 ITR 10, wherein while considering the claim of the assessee under section

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR , JODHPUR vs. JODHPUR HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD., JODHPUR

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 541/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Jun 2025AY 2016-17
Section 139Section 148Section 35ASection 801A(7)Section 80J

272 (Pune) it was held that where\nthe audit report was filed even at the appellate state the same should be\nconsidered and deduction cannot be disallowed. Similar issue was considered by\nthe Hon'ble Kolkata high court in case of CIT Vs. Magnum Exports Private Limited\n262 ITR 10, wherein while considering the claim of the assessee under section

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