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.

41 results for “section 68”+ Section 249clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai565Delhi523Karnataka487Ahmedabad151Kolkata140Bangalore135Jaipur126Chennai65Chandigarh58Indore56Hyderabad56Pune54Nagpur47Surat41Raipur39Guwahati17Calcutta17Cochin16Visakhapatnam14Lucknow14Rajkot11Telangana9Varanasi8Agra7Amritsar7Dehradun7SC7Ranchi6Panaji5Rajasthan4Cuttack4Patna3Allahabad3Jodhpur2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 69A56Section 271(1)(c)53Addition to Income39Section 143(3)24Section 14322Penalty15Section 6813Section 25412Section 153A12Section 263

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(4),, SURAT vs. M/S. MEGA COLLECTION PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1490/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

249,750 Ramani Township Mota Varacha Surat 9 Vipul DGQPS5409N 407, Bid. No. -G, 3,000,000 Savaliya Yamuna Palace, Mota Varacha Surat 10 Chetan BMPPS7036A 407, Bid. No. -G, 3,000,000 Savaliya Yamuna Palace, Mota Varacha Surat 11 Bhagirath AOLPN2760D 99, Shree Nath Dwar 120,000 Narigara Soc. Puna Gam surat 12 Dharmendra AVMPA4106C 202, Payal app. Ankur

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, SURAT vs. SMT. FALGUNI SANDIPKUMAR NAIK, SURAT

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

10
Survey u/s 133A7
Disallowance6

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 659/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiit(Ss)A Nos. 19, 20 & Ita 659/Srt/2018 (Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court)

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 68

68. As recorded above, before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submissions. In the written submissions, it was stated that the ld. CIT(A) asked the assessee to furnish her remand report. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer again issued notice to all the 26 creditors. The Assessing officer furnished remand report vide his letter dated

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1442/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

68 of the Act of 1961 straight-away merely because of the reason that the genuineness of the transaction shown in the heading of the sundry creditors was not found genuine. 13. In view of the above reasons, following s. 145(3) the assessing officer should have proceeded under s. 144 and should have followed the procedure of assessment

MUMTAZ DILAWAR GANI,,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1443/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.1442 & 1443/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Mumtaz Dilawar Gani Income Tax Officer, 6, White House, Near Railway Ward-1, Bharuch Vs. Crossing, Dahej Byepass Road, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch-392001 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं /.जीआइआरसं /.Pan/Gir No.: Adcpg 1175 D (अपीलाथ" /Assessee ) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate & Ms. Disha Kharod, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 31/03/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23/05/2023

For Appellant: Shri Krutarth Desai, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

68 of the Act of 1961 straight-away merely because of the reason that the genuineness of the transaction shown in the heading of the sundry creditors was not found genuine. 13. In view of the above reasons, following s. 145(3) the assessing officer should have proceeded under s. 144 and should have followed the procedure of assessment

CHIMANBHAI A. KANTESARIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 474/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shri Chimanbhai A Kantesaria Income Tax Officer A-54, Trikam Nagar Society, Ward-3(3)(5), Aaykar Vs Lambe Hanuman Road, Surat- Bhavan, Majura Gate, 395006 Surat-395001 Pan : Abepp 7380 D Appellant / Assessee Respondent /Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) while passing the assessment order. The show cause notice under section 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act was served upon the assessee. The Assessing 2 Sh.Chimanbhai A Kantesaria Officer recorded that neither the assessee appeared nor filed any written explanation. The Assessing Officer held

BAKER ABDULAZIZ NORAT,PANOLI, BHARUCH, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1(1), BHARUCH, BHARUCH, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1232/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1232/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Baker Abdulaziz Norat, Vs. Ito, 107, Panoli Travels, Station Road, Ward – 1(1), Panoli, Bharuch – 394115 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akepn7411Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms Vidhi Pandya, Ca Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 68

68 of the Act. The total income was assessed at Rs.32,56,740/- as against returned income of Rs.4,08,530/-. Subsequently, penalty proceeding u/s 270A of the Act was initiated on 17.03.2021 by issuing show cause notices dated 09.06.2021 and 27.07.2021, requesting to file its reply. The assessee was asked as to why ITA No.1232/SRT/2024/AY 2018-19 Baker Abdulaziz

SHRI PRAVINBHAI GHUSABHAI SINGALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 739/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

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

section 68. The said sum shall be deemed to be income of the year under consideration. However, dehors the said provision, it is not possible to state with certainity that the said sum would be concealed income of the assessee for the year under consideration. The past history of the assessee shows that the assessee has not been earning

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), SURAT vs. M/S. RAJLAXMI INFRA, SURAT

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

ITA 163/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.163/Srt/2020 (Ay 2013-14) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of M/S Rajlaxmi Infra Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Room 64, Rajlaxmi Height, Vs No.410, Aayakar Bhawan, Singanpore Cosway Road, Majura Gate, Opp. Shradhhadeep Soc, Surat-395001 Surat-395004 Pan No. Aaofr 1095 C ""थ" /Respondent अपीलाथ"/Appellant

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

68, which is excessive by Rs.5.00 lakhs. (i) For the unsecured loan of Rs.75.00 lakh received from Hemantbhai P Patel, the assessee submitted that the creditor sold his agriculture land and filed copy of sale deed. From the bank account of lender, it is evident that he has received payment of Rs.50.00 lakhs each on 29.03.2012 and 04.4.2012 respectively. Thus

SHRI JERAMBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI THESIA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(3),, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1574/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P.Meena, Hon'Bleआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1574/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Jerambhai Parsottambhai V The Deputy Commissioner Thesia, A-17, Vithal Nagar, S Of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat. Hirabaug, Varchha Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aampt 5791 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R.Sheth – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupam Singla – Sr.Dr

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

249 ITR 125) wherein it was held that the provisions of section 68 permitting the Assessing Officer to treat

SHANTAI EXIM LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, SURAT

In the result, ITA.No.436/SRT/2018 of the Department is dismissed

ITA 273/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Meena

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah And Shri Aman Shah, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sriniwas T. Bidani, CIT-D.R
Section 133A

Section 68 is not attracted to amounts representing 18 ITA.Nos.273 & 436/SRT/2018 M/s. Shantai Exim Limited, Surat. purchases and thus, no addition could be made against the assessee”. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs., Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia 94 taxmann.com 324 (Guj.) in which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, SURAT vs. SHANTAI EXIM LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA.No.436/SRT/2018 of the Department is dismissed

ITA 436/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Meena

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah And Shri Aman Shah, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sriniwas T. Bidani, CIT-D.R
Section 133A

Section 68 is not attracted to amounts representing 18 ITA.Nos.273 & 436/SRT/2018 M/s. Shantai Exim Limited, Surat. purchases and thus, no addition could be made against the assessee”. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also relied upon Judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs., Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia 94 taxmann.com 324 (Guj.) in which

VIKAS AGARWAL,SILVASSA vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 191/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 189/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, SILVASSA WARD , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 188/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO,WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 193/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 192/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

249(2) of the Act. However, it was filed after a delay of more than 17 months. The appellant had not given any sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. But the CIT(A) was very fair and reasonable in condoning the delay and admitting the appeal for adjudication. 10.6 It was alleged by the appellant that the reassessment proceedings were

SHRI GHANSHYAM DUNGARBHAI SUTARIYA,,SURAT vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2971/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Meenaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ghanshyam Dungarbhai Sutaria, Vs. Acit, Circle-8, H.No. 1, 1St Floor, Sahaj Park Row Surat House, Hira Baug Circle, Vallabhacharya Road, Near Kailashdham Society, Ashwanikumar Road, Surat-395008 (Pan: Akkpp9318E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

249 ITR 125 (Guj.) iv) ITAT, Ahmedabad ’A’ Bench Decision dated 30.11.2011 decided in ITA No. 2155/Adh/2010 (AY 94-95) in the case of ACIT vs. Manish Organics India Ltd. v) ITAT, Ahmedabad ’B’ Bench Decision dated 05.06.2015 decided in & ITA No. 1170/Ahd/2014 (AY 2007-08) in the case of M/s Ruchi Developers vs. ITO. 4. On the contrary