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.

1 result for “section 68”+ Section 271Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi58Jaipur57Mumbai41Hyderabad27Chennai26Karnataka21Ahmedabad19Kolkata14Pune13Indore12Visakhapatnam11Agra9Bangalore9Chandigarh8Surat7Rajkot5Cuttack3Jabalpur2Nagpur2Amritsar1Ranchi1SC1Lucknow1Varanasi1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 269S5Section 271D4

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

68 of the Act holding that the assessee could not prove the identity, creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction. However, in respect of another amount of Rs.51,00,000/- received from other 13 entities, the Assessing Officer held that the amount received from these entities was in violation of provisions of section 269SS and hence