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.

5 results for “section 68”+ Section 211clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi609Karnataka527Mumbai353Bangalore182Chennai149Hyderabad120Jaipur100Pune88Ahmedabad81Kolkata80Chandigarh54Calcutta51Raipur45Telangana33Indore28Cochin28Guwahati20Rajkot20Surat19Lucknow16Visakhapatnam15SC8Jodhpur8Dehradun5Kerala5Rajasthan5Nagpur5Allahabad4Jabalpur4Varanasi4Orissa3Patna2Panaji2Amritsar2Agra1Cuttack1Andhra Pradesh1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 69A16Section 115B7Section 1315Section 1485Section 44A4Addition to Income4Section 2503Section 234A3Section 139(1)3Unexplained Money

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

ITA 252/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by not appreciating the correct facts of the case as emerged during the course of Investigation which yielded that the entries obtained were accommodating entries using the vicious cycle using various accounts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Nagpur erred in not appreciating the larger

NIKITA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

3
Search & Seizure3
Business Income2

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 156/NAG/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

211 of the Income Tax Act, therefore not considering the same treated the same confirmed the addition by treating the same as unexplained money is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 4. On the fact and circumstances learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur ought to have accepted returned income and rejecting the contention of the assessee and income treated

SHRI SHANKARLAL CHANDUMAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 159/NAG/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Shankarlal Chandumal Tanwani Vs. The Acit 41, Prop. Shankar Kirana, Tar Bazar, Central Circle 2(1) Main Road,Pandhurna 480334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Aiqpt 1252 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 / 6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 7Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

211 of the Act at Rs.12,85,000/-. The learned Counsel further submitted that the assessee deals in selling and purchasing of 8 Shankarlal Chandumal Tanwani vs ACIT, CC-2(1, Nagpur grains and the Assessing Officer has not accepted the contention of the assessee and treated the same unreasonable and added the entire income of Rs.55

SHRI SANTOSH CHANDUMAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 162/NAG/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Santosh Tanwani Vs. The Acit A-56, Near Jain Bhavan, Bus Stand, Central Circle 2(1) Pandhurna,Chhindwara 480334 (M.P.) Nagpur Pan No.:Adapt 8743 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Addition, Therefore Order Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur Erred In Confirming Brokerage Income At Rs.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

211 of the Act at Rs.12,85,000/-. The learned Counsel further submitted that the assessee deals in selling and purchasing of 8 ITA162/NAG/2021 SANTOSH CHANDUMAL TANWANI VS ACIT, C.C.2(1), NAGPUR grains and the Assessing Officer has not accepted the contention of the assessee and treated the same unreasonable and added the entire income of Rs.55

M/S. ANURADHA SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,,BULDHANA vs. ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AKOLA CIRCLE,AKOLA,, AKOLA

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 18/NAG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

For Appellant: Shri C.J. ThakarFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 115JSection 148Section 44A

68,47,187/- treated as preoperative expenses, has not taken into account since from the commencement of the business on account of depreciation asset in the balance sheet and considered as “deferred revenue expenditure”. It is pertinent to mention that the contents of schedule M of “Significant Accounting Policies” as per S. No. (g) remarks of the auditor