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.

14 results for “section 68”+ Section 46Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi765Mumbai475Ahmedabad157Kolkata148Hyderabad127Chennai104Jaipur90Bangalore88Indore79Chandigarh59Pune58Surat53Raipur49Amritsar47Rajkot40Guwahati34Visakhapatnam31Allahabad25Lucknow24Cuttack24Agra15Nagpur14Patna9Jodhpur7Dehradun7Cochin6Jabalpur5Varanasi5Ranchi4Telangana3Calcutta2SC2Gauhati1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Addition to Income14Section 14811Section 14710Section 35(1)(ii)10Section 688Section 143(2)6Section 143(3)6Section 153A6Disallowance6Section 139(1)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCEL-1(2, NAGPUR vs. M/S. VIBRANT GLOBAL CAPITAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 229/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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 14ASection 68

section 68 of the Act at ` 850 lakh at Para–3 and Para–4.1 of the appellate order. At Para–3, the learned CIT(A) has noted the submission made before him by the assessee on 12/07/2021, and the same has been reproduced at Pages–6 to 13. At Para–3.2, the learned CIT(A) has noted additional evidence

ACIT, AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI vs. JAYANT UMAKANT MAMIDWAR, CHANDRAPUR

4
Cash Deposit3
Deduction3

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

ITA 387/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed LakkadshaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salonkhe
Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credit on the issue of increased share capital during the year under consideration. 4. The learned CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer did not find any specific fault with reference to the details/evidences submitted by the 3 Jayant Umakant Mamidwar ITA no.387/Nag./2023 assessee before the Assessing Officer about

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRI WAMAN MAHADEORAO SARODE, NAGPUR

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

ITA 189/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

68 is concerned the onus is wholly upon the assessee to explain the source of the entry. But in cases railing under section 69, 69A etc the phraseology used goes to show that before any of these sections are invoked, the condition precedent as to existence of 7 Shri Waman Mahadeorao Sarode investment, expenditure, etc. must be conclusively

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.2, NAGPUR vs. SHRI GOVINDDAS GOVERDHAN DAGA, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 614/NAG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

68 of the I.T. Act, without extending an opportunity to the AO to verify the fresh evidence as per the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,02,508/- on account

SHRI GO0VINDDAS GOVARDHANDAS DAGA,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 601/NAG/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur05 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

68 of the I.T. Act, without extending an opportunity to the AO to verify the fresh evidence as per the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,02,508/- on account

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VINODKUMAR RAJENDRALAL KOCHHAR, KAMPTEE

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

ITA 386/NAG/2023[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2024

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

section 147/148 of the Act on the issue of increase in capital account. Considering the facts of this case, I am of the firm belief that the notice dated 30/03/2021 u/s 148 of the Act was illegal, without any basis, and deserves to be quashed. The resultant proceedings and the impugned order dated 30/03/2022

AKASH ANAND PURI,NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 432/NAG/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 46ASection 69A

68 M/s. Rashi Traders Copy of ledger account of Commission Received 11. 69 M/s. Rashi Traders Copy of application U/R 46A for submission of 12. 70 to 72 additional evidence filed before CIT(A) NFAC 13. Copy of written submission filed before CIT(A) 13. 73 to 79 NFAC Copy of acknowledgement of proceed–ings 14. response showing the details

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 176/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24

46A of the 1T. Rules. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of treating the income from house property of Rs. 3,18,989/- as business income. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHRI. ASHISH NATHA CHAKKARWAR, PUSAD

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 433/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Dcit, Cc–1(1), Shri Ashish Natha Chakkarwar, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 205, Aayakar Vs Moti Nagar, Tilak Ward, Bhawan, Telangkhedi Road, Civil Pusad, Maharashtra – 445204. Lines, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001 [Pan: Aegpc2887R] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 147Section 254(1)Section 68

section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, YAVATMAL, YAVATMAL vs. PIYUSH TUSHAR PARALIKAR, YAVATMAL

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

ITA 393/NAG/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royito, Ward-1, Yavatmal Piyush Tushar Paralikar, Vs 9, Radha Raman Nagar, Wadgaon Road, Yavatmal, Maharashtra-445001 Pan : Asepp 6032 D Revenue Assessee Assessee By : Shri Krish Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 Order

For Appellant: Shri Krish Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 68Section 69A

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 23.03.2023, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidence furnished during

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 292/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 153ASection 40Section 43B

46A of the I.T. Rules 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of treating the income from house property of Rs.75,408/- as business income. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

ITA 23/NAG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 May 2025AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Sachin V. LuthraFor Respondent: Shri Harshad S. Vengurlekar
Section 153ASection 40Section 43B

46A of the I.T. Rules 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer of treating the income from house property of Rs.75,408/- as business income. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NAGPUR vs. M/S SOLARIES HOLDING LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 509/NAG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S. Solaries Holdings Ltd. Circle-3, Thapar House, 124, Nagpur Janpath, New Delhi Panno.:Aahcs 59040 B Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shripiyushkolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani (Adv.) Date Of Hearing: 18/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit-Ii, Nagpur Dated 01/09/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2008-09 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani (Adv.)For Respondent: ShriPiyushKolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 133A(1)(ia)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

68,693/- and Rs.23,24,50,899/- by observing as under:- 9. I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions of the appellant. I have also perused the report of enquiry conducted by the investigation wing, Delhi and the remand report of the Id. AO as well as the forwarding comments of the it. CIT, Range

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEEL INFRATECH, NAGPUR

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

ITA 125/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Suren Duragkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 250Section 69C

section u/s 151. The appellant is partnership firm engaged in marketing associate in the field of Real Estate Business. The appellant filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) for A.Y. 2019-20 on 23/07/2019 declaring total income of Rs. 14,47,930/-. In response to notice u/s 148 of the Act which was issued on 17/02/2021