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.

46 results for “section 68”+ Section 27clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,289Mumbai4,320Bangalore1,513Chennai1,101Ahmedabad990Kolkata947Jaipur846Hyderabad752Karnataka691Pune550Indore464Surat455Chandigarh453Cochin277Raipur260Visakhapatnam211Rajkot192Agra138Lucknow132Nagpur127Amritsar126Cuttack118Telangana109Guwahati89SC81Calcutta72Ranchi69Allahabad66Jodhpur52Patna46Panaji42Dehradun32Varanasi15Jabalpur12Rajasthan10Orissa9Kerala6Uttarakhand3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Andhra Pradesh1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Gauhati1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 153A86Section 26363Addition to Income34Section 143(3)28Section 6819Section 69A17Section 142(1)15Section 12715Section 25014Limitation/Time-bar

M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

ITA 25/PAT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna09 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Indrajeet Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 68

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3

14
Survey u/s 133A13
Unexplained Money11

section 68 of the Act to the satisfaction of the AO particularly in respect of creditworthiness and genuineness of transaction including the bona fide of the transaction in question particularly in light of detailed enquiry carried out by the AO of the case in this regard. As the necessary ingredients have to be cumulatively satisfied to escape from

KUMARI SANJANA SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 47/PAT/2020[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Patna27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.47/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kumari Sanjana Singh................................…...........................……….……Appellant W/O Shiv Nararyan Singh, Harsh Egg Centre, Near Anishabad Golambar, Manik Chand Talab, Anishabad, Patna-800002. [Pan: Cleps6120G] Vs. Ito, Ward-4(5), Patna.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhi Sarkar, Advocate Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rupesh Agrawal, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 27, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 27, 2022 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.02.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Patna-2 [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 115BSection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68Section 69Section 695Section 69ASection 69CSection 69D

27,000 made under the provision Section 56(2)(vii) (b)(ii) of the Act read with Section 115BBE of the Act. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in not adjudicating the objection that once the assessing officer proposed to invoke the provision of Section

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 89/PAT/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 94/PAT/2020[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order

KUMAR ARUNODAYA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PATNA [NEW – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, PATNA], PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 96/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 98/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order

KUMAR ARUNOSAYA,PATNA vs. A.O., CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 33/PAT/2020[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Patna07 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 23

Section 68 cannot be invoked. Accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 98/Pat/2021 for AY 2016-17 23. The issue raised in ground no. 1 and 2 by the revenue is against the order

PROGRESSIVE LIFE SCIENCES PVT. LTD.,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DC/AC, CIRCLE 1, PATNA

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

ITA 492/PAT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 492/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Progressive Life Sciences Pvt. Limited,………Appellant Trimurti Palace, Murgi Bagicha, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Aaecp0409P] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,.….Respondent Dc/Ac, Circle-1, Patna, Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dak Bangalow Road, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 5, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 27, 2024 O R D E R

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

27, 2024 O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 5th August, 2022 passed for Assessment Year 2012-13. 1 Progressive Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. 2. The appeal is time barred by 3 days in filing

SHANKAR CONSTRUCTION,PANCHGACHIA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 565/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Shankar Construction,………………..…….……Appellant Panchgachia, Panchgachia-852124, Bihar [Pan:Abofs0800R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………….……..……Respondent Ward-3(1), Purnea, Bihar Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ashok Kumar, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: October 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: November 18, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

27, Barakhamba road, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Om perusal of the impounded materials, it was observed that M/s New KMS Finance Pvt Ltd is shareholder of DB HOLDING 3, 22,525 equity shares of a face value of Rs. 2 each and hold 0.92% share holding in DB. Further, it was also observed that M/s New KMS Finance

BIRJU KUMAR,VAISHALI vs. ITO, WARD- 1 (3), VAISHALI

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

ITA 333/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

27-12-2019 at an income of Rs 55,04,960/- against the returned income of Rs. 5,24,260/-, which is wrong, Illegal and unjustified. 3. For that the learned NFAC has erred in the facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs 49,80,700/- on account

SHANKAR,PATNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 6 (1), PATNA

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

ITA 159/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 250

27,32,500/-. The assessee was ITA No.: 159/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shankar asked to furnish the explanation and the documents for the difference amount of Rs.12,81,455/- and in reply the assessee explained that the difference amount was received from different parties by supplying goods on commission basis. As the assessee did not file any copy

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)

27-11-2008 SBI-436 297105 69,000/- Omkar Kumar 05-01-2009 Dnea-285 975937 4,30,000/- R.S. Kumar 17-06-2008 SBI-347 735724 4,70,000/- Satyendra Sharma 26-03-2009 Dena-285 975985 96,000/- Subhash Kumar 31-05-2008 PNB-9926 821336 1,50,000/- Subhash Kumar

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA vs. BIHAR TRADE TOWER(JV), PATNA

In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 105/PAT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.105/Pat/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Circle-1, Patna ……………………………..........................……….……Appellant Vs. Bihar Trade Tower (Jv), Patna....……...…………………………………....…..Respondent 46/46, Patliputra Colony, Near Sahyog Hospital, Patna, Bihar – 800013. [Pan: Aacab0114D]

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

27, 2024 ORDER Per Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member: 1. This appeal filed by the revenue emanates from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’] dated 09.09.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Patna [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’]. 2. The brief facts of the case are that

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

27,68,200/- 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

CHUNNI LAL RAMESHWAR LAL,STATION ROAD SUPAUL vs. ITO WARD 3(5)SAHARSA, SAHARSA

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

ITA 274/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

27, 2024 आदेश / ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member : The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 06.02.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. SHREE NANAK FERRO ALLOYS PVT LTD, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 249/PAT/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Patna09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Shree Nanak Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle-2 Room No.205, 2Nd Floor, Avrtar Acit, Circle-2, Patna, Bihar Vs. Building, Bisturpur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics1706N Assessee By : S/Shri A.K. Rastogi Rakesh Kumar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Md Ah Chowdhary, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K. RastogiFor Respondent: Shri MD AH Chowdhary, DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

27,400/- from M/s Mahalaxmi Steel comprising in two installments. One of Shree Nanak Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2013-14 ₹2,41,29,400/- and second of ₹1,74,98,000/-. Finally, the said amounts were treated as unexplained cash credit by rejecting the plea of the assessee and added as unexplained cash credit under Section 68

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

27, 2025 O R D E R Per Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Patna dated 8th March, 2010 passed for Assessment Year 2006-07. 1 Bajrang Construction 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed

PATEL AGRI INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED ,NALANDA vs. CIT (A), PATNA- 3, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 314/PAT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

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

Section 131Section 68

68 of the Income Tax Act being unexplained cash credit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that one Shri Arindam Dutta was carrying cash amounting to Rs.29,96,000/-. He was intercepted by the Returning Officer of 224- Kharagpur Sadar Assembly Constituency on 16.11.2019. In other words, the authorities for conducting the bye- election for this Assembly seat have

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