Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

25 results for “section 68”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,638 Mumbai2,195 Ahmedabad774 Jaipur603 Kolkata482 Bangalore440 Chennai414 Hyderabad401 Pune342 Indore337 Karnataka328 Chandigarh235 Surat223 Rajkot175 Raipur165 Agra109 Lucknow96 Cochin86 Nagpur78 Visakhapatnam77 Guwahati76 SC72 Jabalpur71 Cuttack58 Amritsar57 Calcutta50 Allahabad46 Ranchi40 Telangana29 Jodhpur26 Patna25 Dehradun23 Varanasi20 Orissa3 Rajasthan3 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2 ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1 Punjab & Haryana1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1 Gauhati1 Uttarakhand1 Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 142(1)20 Addition to Income18 Section 25014 Section 6814 Section 153D13 Penalty12 Section 143(2)10 Section 143(3)9 Section 1449 Section 44A

SANGAM ALMIRAH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUZAFFARPUR vs. NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 338/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

section 270AA of the Act. The penalty proceeding was initiated on 29/12/2020 and the application for immunity was filed on Form No. 68

ASHOKA TUBEWELL BORING ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 90/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna18 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

9

Limitation/Time-bar6

Condonation of Delay5

Section 132(1)

Section 132(4)

Section 139(1)

Section 153A

Section 271(1)(c)

Section 68

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. The return filed under Section 153A is to be treated as a return under Section 139, and concealment must be judged against this return.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "271(1)(c)", "132(1)", "153A", "132(4)", "68

ROHIT KHANDELWAL,MADHUBANI vs. AC/DCIT, CENT, CIR, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/PAT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

Section 115BSection 11SSection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty

MITHILESH KUMAR,PATNA vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/PAT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 127Section 132ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 153DSection 263

68 to 69D read with Section 115BBE, by colouring the "deemed incomes" as business income. More so, in cases of unaccounted cash and undisclosed investment/expenditure in purchases, and excess stock assessable under section 69A/69B/69C of the Act. 3.2.1. At the outset, all the decisions quoted and relied upon by the assessee, with regard to non-applicability of Section 115BBE, relate

BALKRISHNA BHALOTIA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

68,330/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee on 23.09.2019. It is pertinent to observe that a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 14.09.2017. 2 Assessment Year

M/S MARUTI NANDAN FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 2(1), PATNA

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

ITA 124/PAT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

68 of the I. T. Act, 1961. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in running a flour mill and filed its return on 31.10.2013 reporting total income at nil. Case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for which statutory notices were issued and served on the assessee. In the course of assessment proceedings

SAWITA SHAH,PURNIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNIA

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

ITA 605/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrasawita Shah, Income Tax Officer, W/O Kamal Kishor Gupta Sudi Ward 3(1), Purnia Tola, Ansari Thakur Tola, Vs Dalmapur, Baisi, Purnia, Bihar - 854315 (Pan: Gnzps0882J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

section 68 previous year savings can't be treated as unexplained income. On perusal of assessment order it is noticed that the assessing officer has specifically has mentioned that the addition is being made u/s 69A of the Act. Hence the aforesaid contention of the appellant is not found correct. In the light of foregoing discussing and factual aspect

ZAIMUR RAHMAN,EAST CHAMPARAN vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NFAC, DELHI

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

ITA 321/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 68Section 69A

penalty proceeding under Section 271F of the Act for non filing of ITR. 16. For that the ld. assessing officer has erred in not providing the appellant the reason recorded for initiation of reassessment proceeding under Section 147 of the Act and has grossly acted in violation of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S CONTESSA COMMERCIAL CO. PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 72/PAT/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

68 on account of unexplained credit. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 04.11.2017 declaring total income ‘NIL’ and current year loss of Rs.60,00,834/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued on 14.08.2018 fixing the case

VIJAYA SINGH,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1), PATNA, PATNA, BIHAR

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

ITA 519/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 519/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vijaya Singh,…………………………...….………Appellant M-55/22A, S.K. Nagar, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Asups6086N] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………......Respondent Ward-6(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

penalty under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act was issued to the assessee. Thereafter the assessee submitted a part of reply on 27.03.2021 online. Thereafter notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 09.04.2021 was issued to the assessee to furnish the details as per the questionnaire annexed to the notice. But the assessee failed to furnish

PIONEER EDUCATION SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

ITA 405/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 405/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Pioneer Education Society,……….…….....……Appellant C-310/311, Unitech Business Zone Nirvana Country, South City-Ii, Sector-50, Haryana, Pin Code No.122018 [Pan:Aadap0174C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-1(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, New Dak Bunglow, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Yatin Sharma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

penalty notice under section 271(1)(b) was issued to the assessee on 30.11.2018 requiring compliance on 05.12.2018. Again, letter under section 133(6) was issued to the Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Valachery Branch, Chennai seeking copy of all bank statements of the assessee. Copy of Bank statements received from the Branch and from where it was noticed that

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 10/PAT/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 40A(3)

penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of the notices at the end of the assessee. Ultimately the ld. Assessing Officer gone through the books of account submitted before her and made these two additions by recording the following finding:- “Addition u/s 40A(3) for payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- through bearer cheques:- On perusal of Books

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,BEGUSARAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 391/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: 19/07/2025. The Appeal Is Delayed By Around 37 Days. 4. That The Assessee States That The Reason For Delay Is That The Assessee Is Suffering From Hiv Aids & Is Constantly Under Treatment. Copy Of Medical Treatment Is Enclosed.

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

68 read with section 115BBE of the Act, notwithstanding the fact that the reassessment proceeding was initiated on the basis of cash deposits made in bank. 12. For that the Id. assessing officer has erred in not disclosing the details of the bank account/s in the impugned assessment order, on the basis of which the additions have been made

RAJBANSH RAM,BHABUA vs. ITO WARD- 3(5), SASARAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 351/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 68

68" 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) has very strangely has stated as under Addition upheld: Rs.107632265 whereas the Assessing Officer has assessed the assessee at Rs.32,28,967/- being 3% NP of alleged turnover determined at Rs.10,76,32,265/- 11. That on the facts and circumstances

ANIL KUMAR SAH,BANKA vs. ITO, WD-1(4), BHAGALPUR, BHAGALPUR

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

ITA 324/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 324/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Anil Kumar Sah,………………………....….………Appellant Near Bari Durga Mandir, Kajreli Road, Amarpur, Dist. Banka-813101, Bihar [Pan:Aqgps8735A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(4), Bhagalpur, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, R.N. Plaza, R B S S Road, Bhagalpur-812001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: June 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 29, 2025 O R D E R

Section 143Section 143(1)

section 68, (i.e. Rs.13,63,773/- plus Rs.2,06,932/-) and addition made for undisclosed Bank interest amounting to Rs.38,077/-)] and initiated penalty

BAJRANG CONSTRUCTION,GOPALGANJ vs. DCIT, MUZAFFARPUR

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

ITA 134/PAT/2010[07-Jun]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 May 2025

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 68 of the Income Tax Act. Finally, the ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.44,42,282/- and initiated penalty

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 48/PAT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Jha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

penalty as proposed in that respective section and does not trigger the application of presumptive basis of calculation of Income based on turnover as proposed under section 44AD of the Act. Such arbitrary addition without rejecting the books of accounts specially where the AO found to his satisfaction the information asked for viz books of accounts, and related bills

M/S NORTH BIHAR DISTRIBUTOR,PURNEA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 68/PAT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Jha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

penalty as proposed in that respective section and does not trigger the application of presumptive basis of calculation of Income based on turnover as proposed under section 44AD of the Act. Such arbitrary addition without rejecting the books of accounts specially where the AO found to his satisfaction the information asked for viz books of accounts, and related bills

SURYADEO PRASAD,SIWAN vs. ITO WARD-2 (3), SIWAN

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

ITA 82/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

68,200/- made during the demonetization period as unexplained income u/s 69A and passed the assessment order u/s 144 dated 30.10.2019. Page 2 of 8 I.T.A. No.: 82/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Suryadeo Prasad. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and very perused the record and the submissions made were also examined. We find that

WHALE BLUE HI TECH PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CZAR CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD),PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PATNA., PATNA

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

ITA 372/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) also as there to the Ld. CIT(A) was constrained to pass an exparte order since the assessee did not respond to notices fixing the case for hearing.

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

section 144 of the Act at a total income of Rs. 3,15,00,409/-. The Ld. AO is seen to have passed an exparte order on the ground that no compliance was made to notices fixing the case for hearing. The assessee met with similar fate before the Ld. CIT(A) also as there