Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

36 results for “section 68”+ Section 274clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi748 Mumbai649 Karnataka446 Bangalore208 Jaipur199 Ahmedabad142 Kolkata96 Chennai96 Pune92 Chandigarh73 Indore51 Hyderabad49 Surat47 Rajkot36 Ranchi30 Visakhapatnam29 Raipur29 Lucknow26 Cuttack24 Allahabad21 Calcutta20 Guwahati20 Patna16 Nagpur14 Amritsar13 Telangana12 Agra11 Dehradun10 Cochin10 Jodhpur9 SC5 Jabalpur4 Rajasthan3 Andhra Pradesh1 Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)49 Section 4025 Section 271A20 Penalty18 Addition to Income18 Section 139(1)14 Section 6812 Section 27411 Disallowance11 Section 143(3)

M/S NIHAL PROJECTS,KACHCHH vs. ITO WARD 2 , GANDHIDHAM

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 929/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 274Section 43BSection 68

68", "Section 115BBE", "Section 274", "Section 270A", "Section 271AAC", "Section 234A", "Section 234B", "Section

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2

10

M/S AJAY SALT & CHEMICALS,,UNA vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(3),, VERAVAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 296/RJT/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.296/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

For Appellant: Written Submission

Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. But the assessee again failed to submit or furnished any reply before the AO. Therefore the AO in absence of any reply or submission held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particular of income and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,61,568/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded

THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. SMT. MANISHABEN N. MASHRU,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 355/RJT/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Rajpal Yadavsr.No.

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Ranpura, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

68 of the IT Act cannot be extended to noting in rough notebook which is not books of account as defined in section 2(12A) of the IT Act. There was no case for making the addition u/s68 of the Act on the basis of jotting in impounded documents. Further, the AO has made the addition of admitted income

SHRI HASMUKH KESHAVLAL KESARIA-HUF,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-2(1),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 752/RJT/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2018AY 1997-98

Bench: C .M. Garg & O. P. Meena

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

274 read with section 271(1)(c) was issued and penalty levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and confirmed for concealment of income hence, no penalty is leviable. The case laws relied by the assessee in the case of CIT Ram Swami (supra) and CIT Jalaram Oil Mills (supra) supports his case. In view of the foregoing

PANKAJ CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated ie,\nwhether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 80/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated ie,\nwhether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 79/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated ie,\nwhether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE ACTIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated ie,\nwhether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated ie,\nwhether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income

PANKAJKUMAR CHIMANLAL LODHIYA,RAKJOT vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 81/RJT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which\nlimb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated ie,\nwhether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income

JETHANAND ATMARAM DHANWANI,ADIPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1, GANDHIDHAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/RJT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Rjt/2025 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Jethanand Atmaram Dhanwani Vs. Ito, Ward - 1 Plot No. 368, Wd – 2/B, Adipur – Kutch-370205 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं.At/Pan/Gir No.: Afvpd8813Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. A.R. Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

68,529/- 6. Aggrieved by the order of assessing officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Id. CI(A), who has confirmed the action of the assessing officer. Therefore, assessee is in further appeal before me. JETHANAND A. DHANWANI 7. Shri Kalpesh Doshi. Learned Counsel for the assessee, vehemently argued that according to the provision of section

SMT. ZARNABEN VIBHASHBHAI SHETH,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 55/RJT/2020[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jan 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was issued dated 10-02-2012. But the assessee failed to make response to the said notice. 4. The AO in absence of any reply/submission from the assessee held that the assessee has concealed income and furnished inaccurate particular of income and the assessee has nothing to say about the same. Hence, the AO levied

ATMAN RAJNIKANT BHESDADIYA L/R. LATE SHRI RAJNIKANT LAVJIBHAI BHEDADIYA,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 112/RJT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 271ASection 274Section 68

68 of the Act. 8.1. For adjudicating the levy of penalty is correct in law or otherwise, Section 271AAB is reproduced as follows: Penalty where search has been initiated. 271AAB. (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 291/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

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

68,97,74,915/- and G.P. Page 39 of44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) rate of 8% is applied on suppressed sales to estimate the income element and 8% of bogus purchase of Rs. 6,22,25,000/-. (ii) The estimation of suppressed sales done by the CIT(Appeals) by extrapolating

M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

68,97,74,915/- and G.P. Page 39 of44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) rate of 8% is applied on suppressed sales to estimate the income element and 8% of bogus purchase of Rs. 6,22,25,000/-. (ii) The estimation of suppressed sales done by the CIT(Appeals) by extrapolating

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 273/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

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

68,97,74,915/- and G.P. Page 39 of44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) rate of 8% is applied on suppressed sales to estimate the income element and 8% of bogus purchase of Rs. 6,22,25,000/-. (ii) The estimation of suppressed sales done by the CIT(Appeals) by extrapolating

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 274/RJT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

68,97,74,915/- and G.P. Page 39 of44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) rate of 8% is applied on suppressed sales to estimate the income element and 8% of bogus purchase of Rs. 6,22,25,000/-. (ii) The estimation of suppressed sales done by the CIT(Appeals) by extrapolating

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 275/RJT/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

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

68,97,74,915/- and G.P. Page 39 of44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) rate of 8% is applied on suppressed sales to estimate the income element and 8% of bogus purchase of Rs. 6,22,25,000/-. (ii) The estimation of suppressed sales done by the CIT(Appeals) by extrapolating

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT vs. CLASSIC NETWORK PVT. LTD., RJAKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 286/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

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

68,97,74,915/- and G.P. Page 39 of44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) rate of 8% is applied on suppressed sales to estimate the income element and 8% of bogus purchase of Rs. 6,22,25,000/-. (ii) The estimation of suppressed sales done by the CIT(Appeals) by extrapolating

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S. CLASSIC NETWORK LIMITED,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 13/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

68,97,74,915/- and G.P. Page 39 of44 ITA No. 286 to 298, 177 & 178/Rjt/2022 & 2024 Classic Network Pvt. Ltd. (Group Case) rate of 8% is applied on suppressed sales to estimate the income element and 8% of bogus purchase of Rs. 6,22,25,000/-. (ii) The estimation of suppressed sales done by the CIT(Appeals) by extrapolating