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.

10,808 results for “section 68”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,638Mumbai2,195Ahmedabad774Jaipur603Kolkata482Bangalore440Chennai414Hyderabad401Pune342Indore337Karnataka328Chandigarh235Surat223Rajkot175Raipur165Agra109Lucknow96Cochin86Nagpur78Visakhapatnam77Guwahati76SC72Jabalpur71Cuttack58Amritsar57Calcutta50Allahabad46Ranchi40Telangana29Jodhpur26Patna25Dehradun23Varanasi20Orissa3Rajasthan3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN2ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Punjab & Haryana1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1Gauhati1Uttarakhand1Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income63Section 143(3)51Section 6845Section 271(1)(c)43Penalty30Section 14728Section 271A21Section 14820Section 26320Section 250

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 406/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 147Section 148Section 271A

68 or under section 69 or under section 69A or under section 698 or under section 69C or under section 69D. From a plane reading of the Assessment Order it can be observed that nowhere in the Assessment Order there is mentioning that the addition has been made under which section. It is established position of law that imposing penalty

Showing 1–20 of 10,808 · Page 1 of 541

...
17
Survey u/s 133A16
Disallowance15

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1375/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

68,470/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain and commission charges of Rs. 9,000/-. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 153B of the IT Act at the total income of Rs. 12,24,18,200/-. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty

M/S PAZHAYANGADI G GOLD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty

PRADEEP SHARMA,SAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, KATNI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 68

68 , section 69, section 69A , section 69B , section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent; and (b) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a).” 10. The provisions of section 115BBE thus provides that where

VODAFONE INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1835/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala and Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Parag Vyas (Special Counsel of Deptt)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 220(2)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 of the Act of INR 7,959,683,862 be deleted. Ground No. 3 - Re-raising of demand which was raised in the original order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act 2 Vodafone India Limited vs DCIT, Circle 8(3), Mumbai 3.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 991/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jan 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 119Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 271A

penalty of Rs. 57,33,335/- under clause (a) of section 271AAB(1) @ 10% of Rs. 5,73,33,348/- being income surrendered in search as recorded in statement u/s 132(4) and of Rs. 35,408/- under sub clause (b) of section 271AAB (1) of Act @ 20% of Rs. 1,77,039/-, being difference

SHRI AMIT TIWARI,INDORE vs. THE DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE

ITA 699/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Aug 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2015-16

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271A

penalty under section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 until and unless income so disclosed by the assessee falls in the definition of ‘undisclosed income’ defined in Explanation to section 271AAB of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2.4.1] The appellant accepted additional income to the tune of Rs. 68

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 387/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 50/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

ITA 45/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

ITA 51/CHANDI/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

ITA 54/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 44/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

ITA 48/CHANDI/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 271(1)(c)

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty

GE PACKAGED POWER INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(3)(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 765/DEL/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 2.1) Ld. Counsel for assessee further drew our attention to the order

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 692/DEL/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 2.1) Ld. Counsel for assessee further drew our attention to the order

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 756/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 2.1) Ld. Counsel for assessee further drew our attention to the order

GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS INC.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 693/DEL/2019[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 2.1) Ld. Counsel for assessee further drew our attention to the order

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO., GURGAON

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 754/DEL/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 2.1) Ld. Counsel for assessee further drew our attention to the order

GE JENBACHER GMBH & CO. OHG,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , NEW DELHI

In the result, all the eight appeals are allowed for statistical purposes and all the

ITA 757/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 260A of the Act which has also been admitted and substantial question of law framed. This itself shows that the issue is debatable. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.” 2.1) Ld. Counsel for assessee further drew our attention to the order