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.

2 results for “section 68”+ Section 144C(13)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai742Delhi616Bangalore278Ahmedabad88Hyderabad69Pune68Kolkata63Chennai46Jaipur18Chandigarh17Dehradun17Indore14Surat8Cuttack6Rajkot6Visakhapatnam5Karnataka4Cochin3Raipur2SC2Amritsar2Jodhpur1Telangana1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 2502Section 92C2Section 92B2Section 1442Section 143(2)2Addition to Income2

DOLPHIN PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS,RAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 58/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 58/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal KumarFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 68Section 801B(10)

68,00,000 on the count of 'sale proceeds of immovable property sold on 4-11-20, treating it as undisclosed business receipts, which is unjustified and is liable to be deleted. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.50,00,000 made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. C. G. ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

ITA 95/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 95/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 92BSection 92C

144C(3) of the Act, claiming that the same is not justified, void-ab-initio, bad in law and liable to be quashed. The said addition has been vacated by the first appellate authority, while deciding the additional ground of appeal challenging the validity of assessment order in as much as provisions of Section 92BA