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.

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 269clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka440Delhi407Mumbai315Bangalore122Jaipur86Hyderabad81Chennai75Kolkata50Indore44Chandigarh37Cochin27Allahabad26Ahmedabad24Cuttack22Pune17Calcutta16Surat12Jodhpur10Raipur8Varanasi8Lucknow8Agra7Guwahati5Rajkot5Visakhapatnam5SC4Telangana3Rajasthan3Amritsar3Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 80P15Section 12A9Section 143(3)8Section 2635Addition to Income5Section 1324Search & Seizure4Section 253(3)3Condonation of Delay3

HIND CHARITABLE TRUST,LUCKNOW vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), LUCKNOW

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 26/LKW/2021[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: Na Hind Charitable Trust Vs. Pcit(Central) Lucknow Block B, Church Road, Indira Uttar Pradesh-226010. Nagar, Lucknow-226016. Tan/Pan:Aaath5498M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. C. Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal,CIT (DR)
Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 132

269 Taxman 368 (SC) and it was submitted that the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Agra Development Authority v. CIT 90 taxmann.com 282 (All), is in favour of the assessee on the issue of retrospective cancellation of registration. The Ld. AR referred specifically to paragraphs 3, 50 and 51 in the order of the Hon’ble Allahabad High

Deduction3
Disallowance3
Natural Justice3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

ITA 617/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

section 263 of the Income Tax Act, in as much as the original assessment order dated 11-02-2016 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. That the Ld. PCIT was wrong in not passing an speaking order ignoring the submissions made by the assessee during proceeding u/s 263 rendering the order under appeal

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD.,LAKHIMPUR-KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-I, LAKHIMPUR -KHERI

In the result, all three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 394/LKW/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17
Section 80P

68,63,010/-.\n8. That the Authorities erred on facts and in law in not considering that only the\nreal income/ profit can be Taxed and accordingly, the expenses incurred in\nearning the said income has to be determined and deducted from the Gross\nIncome.\n9. That the addition made is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and\nprinciple

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION GOLA,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI-1

ITA 15/LKW/2023[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR
Section 80P

68,63,010/-. 8. That the Authorities erred on facts and in law in not considering that only the real income/ profit can be Taxed and accordingly, the expenses incurred in earning the said income has to be determined and deducted from the Gross Income. 9. That the addition made is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle

M/S CO-OPERATIVE CANE DEVELOPMENT UNION LTD,LAKHIMPUR KHERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1, RANGE-3(4), LAKHIMPUR KHERI

ITA 37/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR
Section 80P

68,63,010/-. 8. That the Authorities erred on facts and in law in not considering that only the real income/ profit can be Taxed and accordingly, the expenses incurred in earning the said income has to be determined and deducted from the Gross Income. 9. That the addition made is highly excessive, contrary to the facts, law and principle

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)

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

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)

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT

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)

section 149 of the Act. The assessment based on illegal proceedings initiated u/s 148 is liable to be quashed. 4. Because the assessment order passed by AO, after prior approval of Range Head dated 21.03.2024 (AY 2019-20 – 22.03.2024) is not accordance with law and peculiar facts of the case and ratio laid down by Hon’ble Courts. LdCIT