Search: section 68

199 results for “section 68”+ Section 69clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Addition to Income60 Section 143(3)46 Section 14830 Section 14729 TDS29 Section 6828 Section 271(1)(c)27 Disallowance27 Section 26319 Section 143(2)18 Section 6917 Penalty16

PRADEEP KUMAR KHANDELWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Raipur01 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.46/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal 10/683, Sector Balaji Nagar, Shivnand Nagar, Wrs Colony, Raipur-492 008 (C.G.) Pan: Bjypk5882N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 260ASection 69

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

PRAKASH KUMAR KSHATRIYA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAJNANDGAON, RAJNANDGOAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 436/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Raipur05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.436/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Prakash Kumar Kshatriya House No.9, Ward No.44, Kaurin Bhata, Shiv Colony, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Cdhpk3190B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 69A

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

SANDEEP SINGH,JUNA LAKHANPUR vs. ITO AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 448/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Raipur07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.448/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sandeep Singh Juna Lakhanpur, Lakhanpur, Surguja-497 116 (C.G.) Ambikapur Pan: Gesps5929Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 69A

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

SEEMA DEVI AGRAWAL,RAIGARH, CHHATTISGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 250/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.250/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Seema Devi Agrawal C/O. Sunil Kumar Agrawal Sewa Kund Road, Raigarh-496 001 (C.G.) Pan: Affpa4990K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

NISHA NANWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 352/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.352/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Nisha Nanwani Shail Villa, Flat No.502, Block-C, Maruti Life Style, Kota-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Atepn5440L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Warlywani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 69A

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

ADARSH NURSING INSTITUTE PVT LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.534/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Adarsh Nursing Institute Private Limited Behind Sejbahar, Housing Board Colony, Near Kushabhau Thakre Univeristy, Datrenga, Raipur (C.G.)-492 013 Pan: Aagca6544C

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Petition)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR vs. M/S JAYEM HOLDING PVT. LTD., BILASPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the department in ITA no

ITA 93/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Meena, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

68 of the I.T. Act. Aggrieved by the said assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 25.03.2015, Third Eye Vinimay has preferred an appeal before the Ld. Jurisdictional CIT(A), however while the appeal with the 1st appellate authority was pending, the total demand raised by the Assessing Officer for Rs. 5,63,69

ANSHUKA TANEJA,AASTHA APARTMENT, SHANKAR NAGAR, RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 391/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Anshuka Taneja E-7, E-Block, Aastha Apartment, Shankar Nagar, Opposite Wallfort Orchid, Sector-2, Raipur (C.G.)-492 004 Pan: Adupt5936D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 68Section 69Section 69A

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

DAYARAM AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/RPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.258/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dayaram Agrawal H-1, Shankar Nagar, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur-492 007 (C.G.) Pan: Acgpa8622C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 131ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

DURGAWATI PANDAY,BAIKUNTHPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO 01, AMBIKAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 14/RPR/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.14/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Durgawati Panday Ward No.9, Mahalpara, Baikunthpur, Koriya Chhattisgarh-497 335 Pan: Dsipp8404G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 3Section 68Section 69A

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. 6 Durgawati

SIKHA AGRAWAL, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 235/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.235/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shikha Agrawal A-9, Ashirbadpuram Colony, Near Dhimrapur Chowk, Raigarh (C.G.)-496 554 Pan: Cjwpa0265J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Raigarh (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 271ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69Section 69A

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

RAGHVENDRA SINGH THAKUR, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The appeal is allowed

ITA 242/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.242/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Raghvendra Singh Thakur, H.No.238, Sarona, Tatibandh, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Akbpt7616E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(14)(ii)Section 69rSection 80C

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

PRIYESH SINGHANIA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.462/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priyesh Singhania 730/1, Radha Kunj, Opposite Vip Guest House, Pahuna, Shankar Nagar Main Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aoups7838A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194D

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

SAROJ, KOREA,KOREA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR - 1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 379/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.379/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Saroj W/O. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal Pondi Bachra, Korea-497 449 (C.G.) Pan: Etzps9075K

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 263Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 270A(2)(c)Section 69

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

MITESH SINGHANIA,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2) RAIPUR, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 410/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.410/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Mitesh Singhania Singhania Bhawan, Subhas Road, Near Telghani Naka, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Avops1474P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194DSection 80C(5)

68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS VANDANA ISPAT LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 183/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri R.B.Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR

Section 68

68 of the IT Act ?” 13. Whether on points of law and facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,59,00,000/- as the CIT(A) having concurrent powers of the AO u/s 250(4) of the Act, was not justified in deleting the addition made

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BILASPUR vs. MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 153/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 153CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

68, 69C and section 69 of the Act. 14. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein

MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 160/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 153CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

68, 69C and section 69 of the Act. 14. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), wherein

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S TRIPCO SERVICES PVT. LTD., , RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our observations above

ITA 110/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.110/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: S/shri Praveen Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR

Section 1Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

Section 68 of the Act, wherein in absence of “1st proviso” to Sec. 68 of the Act that had been made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f 01.04.2013, no obligation was earlier cast upon the person, in whose name credit consisting of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX, RAIPUR vs. BALAJEE LOHA PVT. LTD., RAIPUR

ITA 356/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 356/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

69,19,324/- Add: as discussed above Disallowance u/s 68 11,54,65,000/- Disallowance out of 1,59,401/- consumption 11,56,24,401/- of store & spares and repair & maintenance Total Income Rs.14,25,43,725/- 8 DCIT vs Balajee Loha Pvt. Ltd., Raipur Less: Allowable Depreciation Rs.3,14,33,840/- Rs.3,14,33,840/- Total Assessed Income Rs.11

Showing 1–20 of 199 · Page 1 of 10

...