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.

62 results for “section 68”+ Section 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,255Delhi1,229Kolkata836Bangalore568Karnataka459Jaipur333Ahmedabad320Chennai300Pune175Chandigarh173Hyderabad147Indore143Rajkot127Surat121Visakhapatnam97Raipur91Calcutta70Panaji65Cochin63Nagpur62Lucknow58Agra39Cuttack38Guwahati34Amritsar28Jodhpur26Patna17Allahabad11SC10Telangana10Jabalpur9Ranchi8Dehradun8Rajasthan4Kerala3Varanasi3Uttarakhand1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)82Section 26367Section 153A38Addition to Income34Section 14721Deduction19Disallowance17Section 6816Section 14815TDS

ITO, WARD- 1)1), NAGPUR vs. AXYKNO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani a/wFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

263 of the Act on 29/12/2017, making an addition of ` 1,58,50,000, representing share capital received by the assessee during the year from various companies mentioned hereunder holding the same to be not genuine and consequently making the addition under section 68

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4

14
Section 143(1)8
Section 1448

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

ITA 350/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

68 to 77 of legal paperbook)  M/s Seyad Shairat Finance Ltd. vs. PCIT I.T.A No. 979/Chny/2020 [2021] (9) TMI 920-ITA Chennai (Refer Pages 84 to 91 of legal paperbook)." 7. The learned Departmental Representative supported the impugned order passed under section 263

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

ITA 349/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

68 to 77 of legal paperbook)  M/s Seyad Shairat Finance Ltd. vs. PCIT I.T.A No. 979/Chny/2020 [2021] (9) TMI 920-ITA Chennai (Refer Pages 84 to 91 of legal paperbook)." 7. The learned Departmental Representative supported the impugned order passed under section 263

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: ShriK.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54E

section 263, the learned PCIT himself has noted that 7/12 extract for the financial year 1980–81, 2011–12, 2016–17 and from 2017–18 to 2019–20, was available. The plot of land was sold on 22/03/2017 and the copy of 7/2 extract dated 18/03/2017, was a part of sale deed. Thus, it is crystal clear that

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 263 of the Act, set aside the assessment order dated 18/12/2019, passed by the ACIT, Circle–3, Nagpur, with direction to pass a fresh assessment order after conducting necessary inquiries, as the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous inasmuch as it is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. The conclusion of the learned PCIT

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

68 of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit on protective basis. Thus, the addition was sustained on the ground of re– opening. 2. Meanwhile, the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (“the learned PCIT"), in exercise of power of assuming jurisdiction conferred upon her under section 263

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. SUFLAM INFRA PROJECT LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 46/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CTI DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

68 of the I.T. Act. However, CIT(A) had directed deletion of the amount. ITA NO.97/NAG/2019 & ITA NO. 46/NAG/2021 & CO NO.6/NAG/2023 Sufalam Infra Projects Ltd vrs Pr.CIT (Central) 2. We have already held in ITA No.97/Nag/2019 that the revision order is unsustainable for the detailed reasons as enunciated above. Since the very basis of invocation of Section 263

SUFALAM INFRA PROJECTS LTD ,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL ), NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 97/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CTI DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

68 of the I.T. Act. However, CIT(A) had directed deletion of the amount. ITA NO.97/NAG/2019 & ITA NO. 46/NAG/2021 & CO NO.6/NAG/2023 Sufalam Infra Projects Ltd vrs Pr.CIT (Central) 2. We have already held in ITA No.97/Nag/2019 that the revision order is unsustainable for the detailed reasons as enunciated above. Since the very basis of invocation of Section 263

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 140/NAG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

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

Section 142ASection 145

263 (153A Investment based Assessment) on DVO Report Amount Rs. 8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 48/NAG/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

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

Section 142ASection 145

263 (153A Investment based Assessment) on DVO Report Amount Rs. 8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 27/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 142ASection 145

263 (153A Investment based Assessment) on DVO Report Amount Rs. 8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 49/NAG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

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

Section 142ASection 145

263 (153A Investment based Assessment) on DVO Report Amount Rs. 8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 47/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

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

Section 142ASection 145

263 (153A Investment based Assessment) on DVO Report Amount Rs. 8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

ITA 26/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 142ASection 145

263 (153A Investment based Assessment) on DVO Report Amount Rs. 8,20,24,434/- 4 26/NAG/2020 2014-15 Department 143(3) r.w.s. Abated 1.Sec.69C – 153A Dt. Investment based 22.12.2017 on DVO Report Amount Rs. 6,38,21,488/- 2. Section 68

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI VINOD BALBHADRA GOENKA,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 204/NAG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit Vs. Shri Vinod Balbhadra Goenka Circle-4 247, Nandanvan Layout Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.:Aanpg 6841 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal By Revenue Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Nagpur Dated 30/03/2017 In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 4/198/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 68Section 69C

section 68 are not applicable to the facts of the case. Identical situation is prevailing in the case of the present appellant. The Hon’ble ITAT on the said order of the CIT u/s 263

VIKAS GUPTA ,INDORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 186/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. Neha JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

263 of the Act has got no application, as addition on account of section 68 do no emanate from

CHANDRAKUMAR MADHUSUDANJI JAJODIA,THANE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRAVATI CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 399/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68Section 69A

section 68 or 69A of I.T. Act 1961. Addition made by A.O. is unjustified. F) Observation of A.O. at para 40 & 41 is factually incorrect. During regular assessment proceedings loan transaction was verified and examined while accepting the same as genuine loan. Observations of A.O. thus are indicative of non-application of mind. G) In submission made before

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

ITA 243/NAG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(3)Section 153A

263/ΝAG/2022\nName of the Assessee\nM/s AVC Homes\n(PAN:AAZFM2044B)\nUMESH THAKRE\n(PAN: ADTPT6214B)\nYRCE EDUCARE PVT LTD\n(PAN: AAACY6482D)\nATUL YAMSANWAR\n(PAN: ΑΑΕPY4543Q)\n30\nUmesh Sadashiv Thakre Α.Υ. 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21\n5\nITA/238 & 264/NAG/2022\n6\nΝ.Α.\nVISHWAS CHAKNALWAR\n(PAN: ABDPC0828J)\nM/S

UMESH SADASHIV THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

ITA 240/NAG/2022[F.Y.2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025
Section 143(3)Section 153A

263/ΝAG/2022 ATUL YAMSANWAR (PAN: ΑΑΕPY4543Q) 5 ITA/238 & 264/NAG/2022 VISHWAS CHAKNALWAR (PAN: ABDPC0828J) 6 Ν.Α. M/S A V REALITIES (PAN: ABFFA9554M) 2. With respect to the abovementioned cases, it is submitted that during the previous hearing on 18/02/2025, this office had filed written submission wherein confidential letters having F.No. Addl CIT-CR-2/Yamsanwar Gr./AMY/2021-22 dated 16/07/2021 written

ATUL MANOHARRAO YAMSANWAR,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

ITA 251/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 153A

263/ΝAG/2022 ATUL YAMSANWAR (PAN: ΑΑΕPY4543Q) 31 Umesh Sadashiv Thakre Α.Υ. 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21 5 ITA/238 & 264/NAG/2022 VISHWAS CHAKNALWAR (PAN: ABDPC0828J) 6 Ν.Α. M/S A V REALITIES (PAN: ABFFA9554M) 2. With respect to the abovementioned cases, it is submitted that during the previous hearing on 18/02/2025, this office had filed