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.

559 results for “section 68”+ Section 234Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi607Mumbai559Bangalore304Ahmedabad152Jaipur89Chennai76Hyderabad74Kolkata73Pune55Nagpur32Karnataka29Allahabad29Indore28Rajkot27Raipur23Agra22Chandigarh22Surat21Jodhpur17Lucknow13Amritsar12Visakhapatnam10Dehradun10Guwahati7Cuttack6Ranchi4SC3Patna2Cochin1Telangana1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)103Addition to Income73Section 6870Section 14854Disallowance37Section 234B34Section 25029Section 14A25Section 6921Section 147

RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 546/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115Section 144Section 145Section 156Section 250Section 274Section 68

68\ntreating the same as unexplained income and added the same to\nthe income of the assessee.\n2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 274\nr.w.s 271AAC of the income tax act.\n3. The Ld CIT(A) erred in charging interest 234A,234B and 234C of\nthe act.\n4. The appellant craves leave to add further

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S KUNDAN JEWELLERS PVT LTD , MUMBAI.

Showing 1–20 of 559 · Page 1 of 28

...
21
Penalty21
Deduction20

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1035/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Siddharth Kothari.AR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 was to be deleted-Held, yes [Paras 7, 7.2 and 9] [In favour of assessee). Ground of Appeal 2 On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law the learned AO erred in concluding that cash sales has increased drastically upto 10 times as compared to the previous year without appreciating the facts

POOJA EQUIRESEARCH PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5941/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5941/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Pooja Equiresearch Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-8(2), B-101, Hari Darshan Bhogilal Mumbai Phadia Road, Kandivali (West) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aaacp 6499 F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya & Ms. Shruti Kalyanikar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya & MsFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

68 of the Act being deemed income which was not recorded in books of accounts. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court "Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT[2001] 247 ITR 290/[2002] 120 Taxman 11 and decision on Hon'ble ITAT Chennai (ITA No 325/Mds./2015 dated 06.04.2016 DCIT Vs M/s Shree Karthik Papers

ACIT CC-45, MUMBAI vs. ANIL M. GUPTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 9215/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta/Govind JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

68 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 11.76/- crores after applying the Gross Profit rate of 6.5% on the sales of Rs. 430.94/- crores. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the interest charged by the assessing officer under the provisions

ANIL MAHAVIR GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 45, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 638/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg.

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta/Govind JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

68 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 11.76/- crores after applying the Gross Profit rate of 6.5% on the sales of Rs. 430.94/- crores. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in upholding the interest charged by the assessing officer under the provisions

LUXORA INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1608/MUM/2020[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 68

section 234A, 234B and 234C of IT. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 12. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing. 3. At the outset, it is noted that the delay 74 days in filing the appeal. Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the delay was owing to the Corona Virus pandemic. Hence

NATHAN ANIL RAO, MUMBAI vs. THE ITO -CIRCLE 23(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 8666/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Soni, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Tiwari
Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69

section 234C of INR 68,972; 8. erred in levying interest under section 234C of INR 68,972; Erroneous

SANKPAL DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(1)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 280/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Sankpal Developers Income Tax Officer, 101-104, Haripriya Apartment, Ward-25(1)(1) Sundervan Complex, 203, Kautilya Bhavan, Lokhandwala Cross Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Andheri (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abwfs4025Q Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Singh, Ar : Shri R.R. Makwana, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

68 of the Act is unjustified and the same may be deleted. iv. The NFAC further failed to appreciate that the Ld. A.O. has made the addition relying on the statements of certain parties obtained during the search and seizure action carried out under section 132 of the Act on the said parties, without providing the appellant an opportunity

BALAJI BUILLION & COMMODITIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3599/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2009-10 M/S Balaji Bullion & Dcit Central Circle-7(1), Commodities (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 118/120, 3Rd Floor, Ashoka Vs. House Zaveri Baazar, Mumbai-400 002. Pan No. Aadcb 0236 F Appellant Respondent : Mr. N.M. Porwal Assessee By Revenue By : Mr. S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr : 27/03/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2024

For Respondent: Mr. N.M. Porwal
Section 234BSection 68

section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. The Ld. A.O. erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of 7. The Ld. A.O. erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of 7. The Ld. A.O. erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income

MATHURA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7096/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chandra,D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 68

68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 instead of deleting the whole amount of Rs.38.70 Crores as he considered the unsigned loose sheets are dumb documents. 3. The Assessing Officer erred in charging interest u/s. 23413, 234C & 234D of the Income tax Act, 1961. It is prayed that the additions made may please be deleted or in the alternative

NITIN NAGARJI MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(3)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4819/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr. A.R
Section 144Section 147Section 68

68 of the Act may be deleted. ITA Nos.4819 to 4821 & 359/Mum/2023 AYs 2012-13, 14-15 & 17-18 4 Nitin Nagarji Mehta v. ITO 5. The Appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section 234B and 234C

NITIN NAGARJI MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25(3)(5) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4821/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr. A.R
Section 144Section 147Section 68

68 of the Act may be deleted. ITA Nos.4819 to 4821 & 359/Mum/2023 AYs 2012-13, 14-15 & 17-18 4 Nitin Nagarji Mehta v. ITO 5. The Appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section 234B and 234C

NITIN NAGARJI MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 32(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4820/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr. A.R
Section 144Section 147Section 68

68 of the Act may be deleted. ITA Nos.4819 to 4821 & 359/Mum/2023 AYs 2012-13, 14-15 & 17-18 4 Nitin Nagarji Mehta v. ITO 5. The Appellant denies any liability to pay interest under section 234B and 234C

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

ITA 701/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16. Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 2. Since the present batch of appeals involve

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

ITA 702/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16. Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 2. Since the present batch of appeals involve

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

ITA 699/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16. Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 2. Since the present batch of appeals involve

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

ITA 700/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16. Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 2. Since the present batch of appeals involve

HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16

ITA 703/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16. Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 2. Since the present batch of appeals involve

JITENDRA UDAYLAL JAIN,MAHARASHTRA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4543/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 ITA. No. 4543/MUM/2023 (A.Y.: 2011-12) Jitendra udaylal Jain, Mumbai. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law the Ld. AO erred in rejecting the exemption of Rs. 3,72,49,578/- under section 10(38) of the Income

RAMESH AMRATLAL BRAHMBHATT ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 34(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the reassessment order dated 20

ITA 9067/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarramesh Amratlal Ito Ward 34(3)(2), Brahmbhatt Kautilya Bhavan, 43 Rajnigandha, Vs. Bandra Kurla Gulmohar Cross Road No. Complex, Mumbai – 11, J V P D Scheme, 400 051 Juhu, Mumbai-400 049 Pan/Gir No. Aabpb7235R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2026

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151ASection 68

68 of the Act is not justified and the same may be deleted. 4 Ramesh Amratlal Brahmbhatt 10. The Appellant denies the liability to pay the interest under section 234B and 234C