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.

5 results for “section 68”+ Section 246A(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Indore163Delhi114Chennai55Mumbai44Jaipur32Kolkata24Chandigarh24Hyderabad19Bangalore13Pune9Panaji7Jodhpur7Raipur6Ahmedabad6Rajkot5Calcutta4SC3Lucknow3Patna2Karnataka2Nagpur2Allahabad2Visakhapatnam1Amritsar1Guwahati1Jabalpur1Surat1Telangana1Uttarakhand1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 234E16Section 2064Section 206C4Section 206C(6)4TDS4Section 682

VISHAL ENTERPRISE, ,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

ITA 347/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.DR
Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 234E

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

RAKESH BASANTILAL LADDHA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

ITA 351/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.DR
Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 234E

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

JAYESHBHAI KANJIBHAI DANGARIYA,,JAMNAGAR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

ITA 352/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.DR
Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 234E

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

PARAG MAKANBHAI PARSANA,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3,, JAMNAGAR.

ITA 353/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.DR
Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 234E

68,692/- whose fine under section 234E was determined at Rs.12,48,800/- on the basis of number of days calculated by the AO. However, in the case of Rakesh B. Ladha, TCS was Rs.68,656/-. Penalty was restricted equivalent to this amount. Similar exercise was carried out in respect of other assessees. Dissatisfied with this levy of penalty

SAR AUTO PRODUCTS LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result impugned order in set aside and, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 668/RJT/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2009-2010

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

Sections 246A and 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Invalid Exercise of Power: The impugned faceless appellate order has been passed without lawful transfer of jurisdiction u/s 250(6B), as the appeal was not pending on the date of transfer to NFAC. Sar Auto Products Ltd. 3. Jurisdictional Error: The learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-12, Mumbai has erred