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.

3 results for “section 68”+ Section 374(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai787Delhi558Karnataka437Bangalore210Chennai155Jaipur85Hyderabad64Chandigarh62Kolkata54Ahmedabad51Pune41Guwahati28Surat24Nagpur19Indore18Raipur16Agra14Visakhapatnam8Telangana8Cochin7Rajkot7Lucknow7Cuttack4Allahabad4Dehradun4Ranchi4Amritsar3Jodhpur3SC2Andhra Pradesh1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)7Section 2634Section 69A3Section 683Addition to Income3Section 142(1)2

ITO, WARD, PHALODI, PHALODI vs. M/S RAMA ALLURE LLP, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

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

2)(vii) and section 68. Therefore, it will be incorrect to see the transaction of taking funds from Arpit Khandelwal from susceptible view. 7. We have submitted the following documents in support of the unsecured Loan taken from one of the partner Shri Suresh Chandar Koolwal a. Confirmation of Account which contains complete name address

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

In the result, stands allowed

ITA 115/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed
ITAT Jodhpur
24 Jun 2025
AY 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

SUNITA AGARWAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

Section 115Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263

374 to 379/ coch/2017 that reference of matter to DVO by assessing officer for valuation is not mandatory. In that case appeal under section 263 was allowed. In view of the foregoing the PCIT does not acquire jurisdiction, hence his action is bad in law. Issue 2 It was alleged that at column number 40 of the audit report