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.

7 results for “section 68”+ Section 148Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai208Delhi154Ahmedabad102Kolkata85Jaipur66Hyderabad37Rajkot36Surat31Bangalore25Pune24Visakhapatnam22Raipur22Indore18Chennai18Chandigarh17Nagpur14Guwahati10Agra8Lucknow7Jabalpur4Dehradun3Patna3Calcutta2SC1Uttarakhand1Allahabad1Karnataka1Jodhpur1Cochin1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 1475Section 142(1)5Section 253(3)4Condonation of Delay4Section 1483Section 1323Addition to Income3Search & Seizure3Section 144B2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. SUDHANSHU TRIVEDI, LUCKNOW

ITA 418/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit V. Sudhanshu Trivedi Lucknow 21/1013, Sector 21 Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ackpt4164G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.R. Respondent By: S/Shri Rajat Jain & Akshat Jain, Cas O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.RFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajat Jain and Akshat Jain, CAs
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(c)

148A(d) of the Act on 26.07.2022 and also issued notice under section 148 of the Act on the same date, i.e., on 26.07.2022. Thereafter, the AO, vide assessment order dated 29.05.2023, made an addition of Rs.1,36,00,000/- under section 68

Section 133(6)2
Reassessment2

BHAWANI DEVELOPERS,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), LUCKNOW-NEW, LUCKNOW-NEW

Appeal is disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid\ndirections

ITA 253/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 68

68 of the Act of Rs.20,25,54,000/-.\n3.2\nVariation-II\n3.2.1 Variation on account of labour charges\n3.2.2 During the year under consideration, the assessee has debited labour charges to\nthe tune of Rs.5,79,26,290/- against the total contract receipts of 7,89,21,744/- in the profit\nand loss account. During the course of assessment

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT(CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

ITA 350/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 250Section 253(3)

sections": ["132", "143(3)", "145(3)", "147", "148", "148A", "149", "153A", "153D", "153B", "144A", "40A(3)", "80C", "80G", "54F", "68

AJAI PRATAP SINGH,RAEBARELI vs. FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT, FACELESS ASSESSMENT UNIT

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

ITA 528/LKW/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Nov 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2016-17 Ajai Pratap Singh Faceless Assessment V. Unit, Faceless Basadh Sanahi, Raebareli- 229001. Assessment Unit Uttar Pradesh-229001. Pan:Bjeps4128M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)
Section 133Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

Section 133 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961. No response was given by the bank to that notice despite this, the Assessing Officer again did not issue any notice to the bank And based on the wrong data available with you Instead of the Best Judgement, a completely Wrong Judgement was issued. The Assessing Officer did not send

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW vs. RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY, GONDA U.P.

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 460/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

68,98,817/- That in the relevant year assessee has sold residential land measuring 300 sq. mtr. on 20.05.2020, part of 447/2, Chawni Bazar (Civil Lines), Pargana- Tehsil, Gonda for consideration of Rs. 9,00,000/- Stamp Duty value Rs. 82,35,000/- to his son AlokPandey (PAN-CZZPP5325B). Considering the provision of Sec. 50C, the liability of Long Term

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 349/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

68,98,817/- That in the relevant year assessee has sold residential land measuring 300 sq. mtr. on 20.05.2020, part of 447/2, Chawni Bazar (Civil Lines), Pargana- Tehsil, Gonda for consideration of Rs. 9,00,000/- Stamp Duty value Rs. 82,35,000/- to his son AlokPandey (PAN-CZZPP5325B). Considering the provision of Sec. 50C, the liability of Long Term

RAKESH KUMAR PANDEY,GONDA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL)-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the outcome of the appeals and Cross Objections are as under:

ITA 351/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 253(3)

68,98,817/- That in the relevant year assessee has sold residential land measuring 300 sq. mtr. on 20.05.2020, part of 447/2, Chawni Bazar (Civil Lines), Pargana- Tehsil, Gonda for consideration of Rs. 9,00,000/- Stamp Duty value Rs. 82,35,000/- to his son AlokPandey (PAN-CZZPP5325B). Considering the provision of Sec. 50C, the liability of Long Term