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.

9 results for “section 68”+ Section 144Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi91Mumbai70Chennai62Kolkata24Allahabad21Pune19Bangalore17Indore16Jaipur16Lucknow14Patna11Chandigarh10Nagpur10Surat9Hyderabad9Raipur9Visakhapatnam8Ahmedabad7Agra5Cuttack4Amritsar3Cochin2Karnataka2Rajkot1Orissa1SC1

Key Topics

Section 26344Section 143(3)13Section 254(1)8Addition to Income5Section 1474Section 1484Section 145(3)3Section 53A3Section 543Cash Deposit

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHARUCH vs. SHRI YOGESH B. PATEL, BHARUCH

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 630/SRT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 254(1)

144A of the Act. ITA 630/SRT/2018 DCIT Vs Sh. Yogesh Patel 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs1,68,42,822/- out of total addition of Rs.1,68,49,975/- by relying on Form 26AS ignoring the fact that Form 26AS does not contain details

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3),, SURAT vs. SHRI MANOJKUMAR SRINIWAS PACHERIWALA,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

3
Survey u/s 133A3
Undisclosed Income3
ITA 868/AHD/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jun 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Income Tax Officer, Shri Manojkumar Sriniwas Ward-1(2)(3), Room No.118, Pacheriwala, Prop. Ginni Vs 1Stfloor, Aayakar Bhavan, International, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 4002, Indradhanush Flats, Nr. Chandan Park, B/H Agrasen Bhavan, City Light, Surat-395007 Pan : Abjpp3803 E Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 44ASection 68

68. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of Assessing Officer in order dated 31.12.2008. The assessee carried 6 Sh. Manojkumar S Pacheriwala the matter before the Tribunal, which restored the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for considering the additional evidence submitted by assessee. The assessee filed such evidences which was obtained from Excise and Custom department

BHARATKUMAR RANCHODBHAI SONI,NA vs. ARIVS.PCIT, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 505/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

sections": [ "263", "143(3)", "142(1)", "68", "115BBE", "144A" ], "issues": "Whether the PCIT was justified in invoking Section

K. N. DIAMOND,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

68 of the Act. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee furnished its reply dated 17.12.2019 and furnished documentary evidence of cash-in-hand, sales ITA Nos.104 & 106/SRT/2022 (A.Y 17-18) K.N.Diamond & Labdhi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd book for month of October and November, 2016, cash flow statement, VAT return for October and November, 2016, names and addresses

LABDHI JEWELLERD PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

68 of the Act. In response to such show cause notice, the assessee furnished its reply dated 17.12.2019 and furnished documentary evidence of cash-in-hand, sales ITA Nos.104 & 106/SRT/2022 (A.Y 17-18) K.N.Diamond & Labdhi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd book for month of October and November, 2016, cash flow statement, VAT return for October and November, 2016, names and addresses

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

ITA 1167/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

68 11,802.94 60,14,350 2013-14 33 5,715.12 32,39,123 Total 249 44,328.29 2,21,59,393 On perusal of details submitted by the assessee it is observed that the average area of each plot works out to 212.91 sq. yard. The working is shown as under - Total are of Plots Area of Each Plot

M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISE,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6,, SURAT

ITA 1166/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

68 11,802.94 60,14,350 2013-14 33 5,715.12 32,39,123 Total 249 44,328.29 2,21,59,393 On perusal of details submitted by the assessee it is observed that the average area of each plot works out to 212.91 sq. yard. The working is shown as under - Total are of Plots Area of Each Plot

THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT vs. M/S. RAJ ENTERPRISES,, SURAT

ITA 1164/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

68 11,802.94 60,14,350 2013-14 33 5,715.12 32,39,123 Total 249 44,328.29 2,21,59,393 On perusal of details submitted by the assessee it is observed that the average area of each plot works out to 212.91 sq. yard. The working is shown as under - Total are of Plots Area of Each Plot

SHRI SABBIRBHAI DAWOODBHAI SHAIKH,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(4), SURAT

In the result, the ground No

ITA 121/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Sabbirbhai Dawoodbhai Income Tax Officer, Ward- Shaikh, 3(1)(4), Anavil Business Vs 7/4539, Galemandi, Centre, Adajan, Surat- Lakkad Kot, 395009 Surat Pan : Aeqps 5688 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 54

68,750/- and not Rs.51,37,500/-. Secondly, the assessee purchased NHAI Bonds of Rs.10 lakh and not Rs.5 lakh on sale of such property.The assessee stated that there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee and that notice under section 148 reliable to be quashed. The assessee made reference to Addl. CIT, Range