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.

5 results for “section 68”+ Section 272Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai40Mumbai39Delhi37Karnataka21Ahmedabad21Jaipur17Indore16Pune8Chandigarh7Hyderabad6Surat5Lucknow4Bangalore4Kolkata3Jabalpur2Patna1Raipur1Rajkot1SC1Allahabad1Dehradun1Cuttack1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 687Section 272A(1)(d)6Addition to Income5Penalty4Section 254(1)3Unexplained Cash Credit3Condonation of Delay3Disallowance3Section 234A2

SHANKAR RAMKUMAR MUNDRA,SURAT vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical\npurposes

ITA 78/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Aug 2025AY 2019-20
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 254(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44ASection 68

sections": [ "272A(1)(d)", "147", "144", "68", "44AB", "142(1)" ], "issues": "Whether the penalty levied under section 272A

MANISH BHOGILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3, NAVSARI, NAVSARI

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

Section 271A2
Section 1472
Section 143(3)2
ITA 687/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.687/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Manish Bhogilal Shah The Income Tax Officer-3 बनाम/ 6/B, Crown Mansion Navsari – 396 445 V/S. Ground Floor Forjeet Street, Cross Lane, Mumbai – 400 026 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acqps 6699 F (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (!) यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08 /12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27 /02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 27/12/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Manish Bhogilal Shah Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 271ASection 68Section 69C

272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Ground 9. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds OR to amend OR alter the existing grounds of appeal on OR before the date of hearing. 4. Ground 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in passing exparty order

SHASHIKANT KALYANBHAI PATEL,BHARUCH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), BHARUCH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 45/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Shashikant Kalyanbhai Patel, I.T.O., 659, Sapoliya Street, Ramshila Ward 1(5), Vs. Chowk, Shuklatirth, Bharuch. Bharuch-392030. Pan No. Adlpp 4184 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 234ASection 254(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 68

68 of the Act without considering the mandatory requirement of invoking the Section under the Act. Shashikant Kalyanbhai Patel Vs ITO 3. Both the lower authorities have erred both in law and on the facts in confirming the addition by not considering the past cash withdrawals from the bank account, agriculture income earned and past savings etc. and simply

SHRI JIVRAJBHAI H. BALAR,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2),, SURAT

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2004-05 to 2007-08, ( IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 1245/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A No.150 To 154/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2004-05 To 2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1245/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) Jivrajbhai Harkhabhai Balar, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-1, 59, Kantareshwar Society, Surat. Katargam Road, Surat-395004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abopb8649M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR) & Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153C

68,80,493/- was disallowed by the assessing officer. 16. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) adjudicated the issue relating to validity of assessment under section 153C of the Act, observing as follows: Apparently, the 1st ground in the original grounds

SHREE SAI ALANG HOUSE,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(1), SURAT

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

ITA 906/SRT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.906/Srt/2024 (Ay 2022-23) (Physical Court Hearing) Shree Sai Alang House Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(1), 13-15, Khodal Chhaya Society, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, बनाम Surat Kamrej Road, Opp. Majura Gate, Vs Shyamdham Mandir, Surat-395 001 Surat-394 185 [Pan : Abefs 8896 D] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 37(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) 22.03.2024. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action