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.

10 results for “section 68”+ Section 144clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,581Mumbai1,487Kolkata521Karnataka499Ahmedabad424Bangalore390Jaipur383Chennai362Hyderabad290Surat188Chandigarh183Indore175Pune164Raipur144Rajkot132Cochin114Amritsar91Nagpur74Lucknow74Patna56Visakhapatnam55Agra54Calcutta54Guwahati51Jodhpur45Allahabad40Telangana40Cuttack26SC25Jabalpur18Dehradun16Ranchi10Panaji9Varanasi8Rajasthan5Orissa5Uttarakhand1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 14411Addition to Income10Section 686Section 269S5Section 271D4Section 1474Unexplained Cash Credit4Section 2503Section 56(2)(vii)3Section 148

KAMESHWAR ALLOYS AND STEELS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 49/RAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.49/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kameshwar Alloys & Steels Pvt. Ltd….…............................……….……Appellant 128/3, Hazra Road, Bhawanipur, Kol-700026.. [Pan: Aadck6558K] Vs. Acit, Cc-1, Ranchi.................……….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Md. Shadab Ahmed, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 14, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Patna (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 05.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration. The Case Was Originally Selected For Scrutiny On The Issue Of Share Capital & Share Premium Received During The Year. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Ex Parte Under Section 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, On The Ground Of Alleged Non-Compliance & Made An Addition Of ₹2,00,00,000 Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received From Various Companies, Treating The Same As Unexplained Under Section 68 Of The Act. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Operation Under

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133A
3
Survey u/s 133A2
Reassessment2
Section 143(3)
Section 144
Section 153A
Section 250
Section 68

144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground of alleged non-compliance, and made an addition of ₹2,00,00,000 being share capital and share premium received from various companies, treating the same as unexplained under section 68

GAYATRI GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 456/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.456/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.96/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Agarwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2013–14 & 2014–15. Since The Issues Involved, The Assessment Proceedings & The Additions Made Are Common & On Identical Issues, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We First Take Up

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

68 of the Act. Consequently, the amount of ₹37,44,600 was treated as unexplained cash credit and added to the total income of the assessee. Further, due to non-compliance with statutory notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144

GAYATHRI GLOBAL RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD (1), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 96/RAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.456/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent I.T.A. No.96/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Gayatri Global Pvt. Ltd …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 153, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Jharkhand-831001. [Pan: Aadcg3732B] Vs. Nfac, New Delhi…….....………...….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Agarwal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 16, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Years 2013–14 & 2014–15. Since The Issues Involved, The Assessment Proceedings & The Additions Made Are Common & On Identical Issues, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We First Take Up

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

68 of the Act. Consequently, the amount of ₹37,44,600 was treated as unexplained cash credit and added to the total income of the assessee. Further, due to non-compliance with statutory notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144

PADAM KUMAR JAIN,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 130/RAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi24 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Ranchi Padam Kumar Jain, Ranchi 303, Paras Apartment, Kutchary Road, Ranchi-834001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawpj4189M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Mohanti, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 145(3)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), dated 26.12.2016. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. The appellant claim for the relief of Rs. 1,37,68

ACIT CIR-1, JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S AUTOPROFILE LTD, JAMSHEDPUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 174/RAN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

144 if he is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of t he assessee and therefore once the section 145 comes into picture the book result of the assessee should be rejected and the Profit from business or profession may be estimated in totality and not on the basis of certain specific item as done

JAI LAXMI TRADERS,DHANBAD vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE 1, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 131/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Jai Laxmi Traders, Dcit/Acit, Office No. 423, 2Nd Floor City Centre, Circle-1, Vs. Luby Circular Road, Dhanbad-826001 Dhanbad. Pan No. Aalfj 7433 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 144

Section 144 of the Act and assessed the total income of ₹ 1,32,91,468/- by estimating the profit at ₹ 50.00 lacs on the total purchase of ₹ 5,68

PAWAN KUMAR,RANCHI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), RANCHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 487/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.487/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Pawan Kumar….………...................................…...........................……….……Appellant A/3, Manorama Enclave, Argora, Pundag Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834012. [Pan: Agypk0863F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Ranchi……........…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 23, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 03.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 15 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & That The Delay Was Not Intentional. We, Therefore, Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee In Spite Of Serving Notices For Hearing & The Tribunal Cannot Keep This Appeal Pending For Indefinite Time Due To Non-Representation. Therefore, In The Absence Of Any Authorised Representative Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Decide The

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 68

68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit of Rs.12,83,000/- completing the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 26.05.2023. 5. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance by simply upholding

DCIT CIRCLE-3, BOKARO vs. YAVVARI NARAYAN RAO, BOKARO

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 246/RAN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalea.Y. : 2010-2011 Dcit, Circle-3, Bokaro Vs Shri Yavvari Narayan Rao, A-1, Sector Market-1, Ram Mandir, Sec-1, B.S.City-827001 Pan No. : Aajcs 7786 F Respondent (Appellant) . Revenue By :Shri A.K.Mohanty, Jcit Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 28.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2018 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohanty, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44

68,370/-. Therefore, in my j considered opinion, no addition is required on this issue. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Vs. C1T (245 ITR, 428). The appellant succeeds on this ground of appeal. The Assessing Officer is. however, free to invoke the provisions of Section

SANTPURIA ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,GIRIDIH vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 142/RAN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Manish Boradi.T.A. No.142/Ran/2015 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Santpuria Alloys Pvt. Ltd……………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Manjhladih, Giridih - 815301. [Pan: Aaics4215J] Vs. Acit, Central Range-2, Ranchi….……………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rahul Saboo, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Ku. Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 25, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 20, 2022 Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.09.2015 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 250Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

section 269SS were not attracted. The other argument taken was that there was no finding of any of the Income Tax authorities below that the transaction made by the assessee, in respect of acceptance of share application money in cash, was not a genuine transaction. That there was no finding by any of the lower authorities that the transaction

ITO.WD-2(1), RANCHI vs. SHRI NAND BIHARI SHRIVASTAVA, RANCHI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 197/RAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT/ld.DR
Section 144Section 54Section 56(2)(vii)

144 of the Income­Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the ‘Act’) dated 28­10­2016. 2. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of assessee in spite of issuance of notice for hearing more than one occasions. The learned Departmental Representative ( ld.DR) was present for the appellant revenue. In the absence of any appearance of the assesse, the appeal is being