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.

26 results for “section 68”+ Section 83clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,815Mumbai2,109Bangalore771Ahmedabad618Karnataka598Chennai592Jaipur519Kolkata493Hyderabad382Surat329Cochin315Indore291Pune290Chandigarh269Raipur157Visakhapatnam108Cuttack99Rajkot93Nagpur88Telangana77Lucknow66Calcutta64Panaji63Agra60Jabalpur59Amritsar56Patna42Guwahati37SC37Jodhpur26Allahabad22Ranchi22Dehradun13Rajasthan9Orissa6Varanasi6Kerala5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2Punjab & Haryana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 26327Section 14824Section 35A24Addition to Income24Section 143(3)23Section 133A14Section 6813Section 143(2)11Section 115B10Survey u/s 133A

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)

83,16,53,000/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act by treating amount received as unsecured

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 30/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

8
Undisclosed Income8
Deduction7
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)
For Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V. (JCIT-Sr.DR)
Section 143(1)

68 or u/s. 41(1) of the Act and hence, the addition made at Rs. 25,91,01.791/- is directed to be deleted. Considering my findings contained in para Nos. 7 & 11 (Supra), the total addition of Rs. 34,76,10,409/ is directed to be deleted, ground Nos. 2 to 6 raised by the appellant regarding this issue

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

M/S. PRATIK METALS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 156/JODH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Prateek Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income E-74, Marudhar Ind. Area, Tax-1, Basni-Ii, Jodhpur. Jodhpur.

For Appellant: "1. The
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(24)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

Section 56 of the Act were applicable only from assessment year 2013-14 and were not applicable in the year under consideration. Even on merits of the case it was submitted that the assessee had submitted that voluminous details with regard to the issue of share capital. The assessee company received a total

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

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 on account of unaccounted cash loans and added to the total income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2019-20. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A) are also initiated for misreporting of interest income earned on advancement of cash loan. (Addition of Rs. 33,47,041/-)” (Emphasis supplied) 3.4. That on the basis

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

83/-pertained to Mehta Medihealth Pvt.Ltd., Rs. 2,98,000/- pertained to the wife of the appellant and Rs. 3,25,000/- to the mother of 4 Dr. Manish Chhaparwal v. DCIT the appellant and other as cash balance of the family. However, this argument of the appellant was not accepted by the AO as there was a clear contradiction

ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI vs. SHAHNAVAJ NAJIK L.H OF LATE SH. IQBAL NAJIK, PALI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 92/JODH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur05 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Acit Vs Shri Shahnavaj Najik Circle-Pali L/H Of Late Shri Iqbal Najik 173, Ashapura Nagar, Pali (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aalpn 5861 D

Section 40A(3)Section 68

68 of the Act. Hence, the AO also disallowed interest expenditure of Rs.5,83,397/- claimed thereon. Thus the total addition aggregated to Rs.80,83,397/-. 3. Before the Ld CIT(A) the assessee filed evidences to show that the lender has filed suit against the assessee for recovery of loan amount. By admitting those additional evidences

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 68 of the Act. Apart from making sweeping statements, which have been found to be factually erroneous, no objective material has been brought on record by the Ld. Pr. CIT to implicate the assessee or the AO per se of being guilty of non-enquiry. We further find that when confronted with the reasons

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24

Section 2(13) of the IT Act which reads as under: "Business" includes any trading, commerce or manufacture or any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture." The above definition has used the words 'trade' 'commerce' or 'manufacture' or "any adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture". The Hon'ble Gujarat

DCIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA vs. SHRI PRAHALAD RAI RATHI, BHILWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 282/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi Circle Prop: M/S.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adxpr 0949 R

Section 68Section 69C

68 holding as under: "The submission of the assessee has been carefully considered but the same is not found satisfactory in the eyes of law. The assessee claimed that he has having business relation with these companies and fund transferred to M/s India Nivesh Securities Pvt. Ltd were received from these companies. The assessee has also claimed that funds

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

68 TO 73).Further query relating to investment was raised at the time of statement recorded u/s 131 during survey. Your kind attention is drawn to the statement recorded during survey proceedings wherein the various in depth queries were raised and replied in comprehensive manner. Further assessing officer during assessment proceedings appreciated the statement and impounded material in the backdrop

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

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

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

83,448/-made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed to comply with statutory requirement of provision of section 35AD(7) read with section

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

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

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

83,448/-made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed to comply with statutory requirement of provision of section 35AD(7) read with 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

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

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

83,448/-made on account of disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35AD r.w.s. 80-IA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions for claiming deduction u/s 35AD, by not appreciating the fact the assessee has failed to comply with statutory requirement of provision of section 35AD(7) read with section

MURLIDHAR KRIPLANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 153/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Completing The Assessment Of Income Which Is Mandatory In Sh. Murlidhar Kriplani Vs. Ito Nature. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Also Confirmed That Where Return Of Income Filed Beyond Time As Contemplated Under Section 139, It Is Not Necessary On Part Of Ao To Issue Notice U/S 143(2) Which Is Bad In Law & Unjustified & Not Tenable As Per The Hon'Ble Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench In Case Of Ito Vs Kamla Devi Sharma In Db

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158Section 54F

68,000/-. 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment the assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving following findings on the issue:- “Paragraph 15 …………..But Section 143(2) itself becomes necessary only where it becomes necessary

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

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

83 (SC). 1.2 Also kindly refer CIT v/s Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it is held that: "The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" in S. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression "erroneous" order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue

THAR HEAT TRANSFER EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD. ,JODHPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JODHPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/JODH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavthar Heat Transfer Equipments Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Pvt. Ltd., Jodhpur. B-13 To 16, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Pan No. Aacct 7832 L Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca & Shri Abhinav Kothari, Ca Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Jodhpur Dated 20/03/2020 For A.Y. 2015-16 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised: “1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Has Erred In Invoking Section 263 & The Setting Aside Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Is Bad In Law & Bad On Facts. The Order Made U/S 143(3) Cannot Be Said To Erroneous Or Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Order Passed U/S 143(3), Was Made After Duly Examining The Issue Relating To Capital Gains & The Said Order Cannot Be Said To Be Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Or Revenue. The Allocation Of Value Of Sale Of Land Was On The Basis Of Valuation Adopted By The Stamp Authorities & Was Also Verifiable. The Ld. Pr. Cit Had Erred In Observing That The Appellant Had Taken The Higher Value Of Agriculture Land. 3. The Appellant Crave Liberty To Add, Amend, Alter, Or Modify Any Of The Ground Of Appeal On Or Before Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 50

section 50 of the Income Tax Act. On sale of agriculture land it was claimed that the same was not falling within the definition of capital asset the gain, as was situated outside the limits prescribed and was not liable to tax. 4. The objection of the ld PCIT with regard to the allocation sale consideration towards agriculture land

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

ITA 65/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

83 TTJ (Jd) 770 reasonable expenses should be allowed. Here issue is not of allowing expenditure. Hence, this decision is not found applicable. In the case of Adeshwar Jain Vs ITO (2006) 35 Taxworld 150 (ITAT) (Jd.) and Anand Prakash Soni Vs DCIT (2006) 101 TJ (Jd) 97 ignoring of cash flow statement was not found justified. However, there

SHRI SHYAMSUNDAR SONI KARTA HUF,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE,, BIKANER

In the results the appeal filed by the

ITA 62/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

83 TTJ (Jd) 770 reasonable expenses should be allowed. Here issue is not of allowing expenditure. Hence, this decision is not found applicable. In the case of Adeshwar Jain Vs ITO (2006) 35 Taxworld 150 (ITAT) (Jd.) and Anand Prakash Soni Vs DCIT (2006) 101 TJ (Jd) 97 ignoring of cash flow statement was not found justified. However, there