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.

11 results for “section 68”+ Section 272Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka21Chennai12Mumbai11Delhi2Indore2Jaipur1Nagpur1Pune1SC1

Key Topics

Section 271B25Section 14813Section 6811Section 143(3)10Section 44A10Addition to Income6Penalty6Section 272A(1)(d)5Section 1424Cash Deposit

MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3062/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

section 68 of the Act ought to be deleted.” ITA No. 3062 & 3274/Mum/2022 Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 19. Whereas, the CIT(A) has considered the information and granted partial relief and sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.4,42,503/- and the observations are at Para 11.2 to 11.5 of the order as under

4
Section 1313
Search & Seizure2

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), MUMBAI vs. MANGAL ROYAL JEWELS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the asseees is allowed

ITA 3274/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mangal Royal Vs. Acit-Cc-1(3), Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.905, 9Thfoor, Shyam Kamal Co- Old Cgo Bldg,Annexe, Operative Housing M.K. Road, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400020. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Dy.Cit-Cc 4(3), Vs. M/S Mangal Royal Central Range-4, Jewels Pvt Ltd. 29C, Room No.1921, Shyam Kamal Co- 19Th Floor, Air India Operative Housing Bldg, Nariman Point, Society Ltd, Agarwal Mumbai-400021. Market, M.G. Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400057 Pan/Gir No. : Aaicm0846R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant/Respondent Mr.Poojan Mehta.Ar By : Respondent/Appellant By Mr.Prakash Kishinchandani.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

section 68 of the Act ought to be deleted.” ITA No. 3062 & 3274/Mum/2022 Mangal Royal Jewels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 19. Whereas, the CIT(A) has considered the information and granted partial relief and sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.4,42,503/- and the observations are at Para 11.2 to 11.5 of the order as under

CY. CIT 6(1) (2) , MUMBAI vs. M/S. BHANDARI GOLD & JEWELLERS PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1564/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

272B. Furthermore, if we would have been failed to collect the PAN as required, then in that case we would like to be facing penal liability of Rs. 10000/-. But we are not liable for any person who have done non-compliance of the provisions of Section 139. The buyer himself is liable for non-compliance of section

BHANDARI GOLD AND JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (APPEAL), NFAC - DELHI

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

ITA 1619/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – 6(1)(2) V. M/S. Bandari Gold & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., 407, Bussaudyog Bhavan Room No. 538B, 5Th Floor Tokersi, Jivraj Road, Sewree Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400015 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcb1291J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 68

272B. Furthermore, if we would have been failed to collect the PAN as required, then in that case we would like to be facing penal liability of Rs. 10000/-. But we are not liable for any person who have done non-compliance of the provisions of Section 139. The buyer himself is liable for non-compliance of section

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1144/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1145/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1141/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1143/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

MAHARASHTRA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)-NATIONAL FACELESS, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1142/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

68,493 5. However no return was filed by the assessee for all these assessment years as the prevailing opinion was that the income earned by the council is exempt from income tax and the assessee was not required to file return of income. 6. Notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2018 was issued to assessee and assessee filed return in response

VIMAL PUKHRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

ITA 1238/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Vimal Pukhraj Jain National E-Assessment Centre, 806, Dheeraj Enclave, New Delhi Vs. Opp. Bhor Industries, Borivali (E), Mumbai-400 066 Pan/Gir No. Aaipj 6511 H (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Choughule
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 68

68 as unexplained credits and initiated penalty proceeding levied u/s. 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The provision of section 272A(1)(d) of the Act is extracted hereunder for ease of ready reference: Penalty for failure to answer questions, sign statements, furnish information, returns or statements, allow inspections, etc. 272A. (1) If any person,— (a) being legally bound

HIGH VOIT ELECTICALS P LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 , PALGHAR

In the result, the appeal

ITA 4461/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 High Volt Electricals P. Ltd., Ito Ward 1, J,46, Midc Tarapur, Boisar, S.O. Mqp8+5Q3, Amba Wadi, Salwad, Boisar-401 506. Vs. Palghar-401 404. Pan No. Aabfh 1723 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek JainFor Respondent: Mr. Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 147Section 148

272B of the Act and the penal proceedings are being initiated and will be penal proceedings are being initiated and will be uploaded on ITBA uploaded on ITBA Portal. 5.6 I have gone through the materialistic facts of the case and 5.6 I have gone through the materialistic facts of the case and 5.6 I have gone through the materialistic