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.

3 results for “section 68”+ Section 271Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai56Jaipur32Mumbai27Karnataka21Kolkata12Ahmedabad9Hyderabad7Delhi6Bangalore6Indore4Pune3Varanasi2Chandigarh2Rajkot2SC2Jodhpur1Calcutta1Nagpur1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 271B8Section 44A7Section 27I4Section 2713Section 271A3Section 272B3Section 683Section 271F2Penalty2Addition to Income

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. AKASH FARMS PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1482/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1482/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-1(1), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Akash Farms Llp, Nath House, Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aadca3303J Revenue By : Smt. Shabana Parveen Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agarwal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.05.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 1, Aurangabad Dated 29.04.2016 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Passing The Order Both On The Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Failing To Give To The A.O. Reasonable Opportunity Required To Be Given To The A.O. As Per Rule 46A(3) As Only Seven Days Were Given To The A.O. For Examining & Rebutting The Considerable Additional Evidence Produced By The Assessee & For Submitting The Remand Report & The Order Was Passed By Cit(A) On The Very Next Day After The Remand Report Was Due. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (A)-1 Erred In Not Upholding The Addition Of Rs.42608528/- In Light Of The Decision By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Pcit Vs Nra Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. (Reported In 103 Taxmann.Com 48) As In The Instant Case The Investor Company Was In Loss Of Rs.65,459/- & Had Negative Figures Of Reserve & Surplus Of Rs.3.60 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Smt. Shabana Parveen
Section 143(3)
2
Section 68

section 68 of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(A), Aurangabad be quashed and that the order of the A.O. be restored. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any other ground at the time of hearing.” 3. Briefly stated the relevant facts include

UNIQUE AUTOMOBILES ,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 477/PUN/2018[2004-05 ( F.Y. 03-04)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.477/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Unique Automobiles, The Cit(A), Kolhapur. 32, Jayraj, Near Tata Petrol Vs Pump, Vishrambag, Sangli – . 416416. Pan: Aaafu 3563 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jansnani - Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2004-05 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur’S Order Dated 01.11.2017 Passed In Appeal No. Sli/093/10- 11, In Proceedings U/S.271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 148Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271CSection 271ESection 271FSection 271GSection 272ASection 272B

271A, 26 [section 271AA,] section 271B 26a[, section 271 BA], 27 [section 27IBB.]section 271C , section 27ID, section 271E , 28 [ section 271F. 29 1 section 271 FA ,] 30[ section 271FB, ] 3.1 [ section 271G.1] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section

AGRAWAL NARENDRA JWALAPRASAD,HUF,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 107/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Us. Notices Were Served At The Given Address. Hence Case Was Heard Recording Submissions Of The Ld. D.R & As Per The Documents/Materials Available On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 133(6)Section 271ASection 271BSection 274Section 44ASection 68

section 44AB of the Act. 3. At the time of hearing none appeared for the assessee. There was no adjournment petition filed before us. Notices were served at the given address. Hence case was heard recording submissions of the ld. D.R and as per the documents/materials available on record. 4. Brief facts in this case are that during