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.

30,642 results for “section 68”+ Section 143(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi7,362Mumbai7,311Kolkata2,473Bangalore1,595Ahmedabad1,528Chennai1,272Jaipur1,247Hyderabad1,037Pune840Indore699Surat624Chandigarh601Karnataka548Rajkot397Visakhapatnam350Raipur343Cochin316Lucknow240Nagpur214Amritsar213Guwahati202Agra198Calcutta119Patna114Cuttack111Jodhpur105Panaji103Ranchi94Allahabad91Dehradun79Telangana68Jabalpur43Varanasi35SC33Kerala10Rajasthan8Orissa7Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Uttarakhand2Punjab & Haryana2HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)88Section 6875Addition to Income66Section 153A38Section 143(2)33Section 14833Section 14A30Section 142(1)28Section 26326Disallowance

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 415/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

Section 292BB not applicable- Reassessment not validIncome Tax Act, 1961, ss. 143,147,292BB 336 ITR 678 - CIT V/s Rajeev Sharma (Allahabad) (Case laws Paper book pages 62- 68) Reassessment - Procedure - Return in response to Notice u/s 148 - Assessing Officer www.taxguru.in (8 of 13) [ITA-197/2018 must apply his mind and issue Notice u/s 143(2

Showing 1–20 of 30,642 · Page 1 of 1,533

...
20
Deduction17
Unexplained Cash Credit15

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee for the AY 2015-16\nto AY 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 825/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

section 148 of the Act.\n6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act.\n7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Id. AO erred in disallowing\nthe business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the Id.\nCIT(A) erred in confirming the same

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 823/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 824/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

VINOD MONGIA,WAST AZAD NAGAR, DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VIKAS BHAWAN,DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1844/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Vinod Mongia, Vs Ito, C-40, Street No.1A, West Ward-58(7), Azad Nagar, Delhi-110005. Vikas Bhawan, Pan-Akhpm6218R Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Jain, Adv. & Shri Nitin Kanwar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

143 r.w.s 147 was completed by making an addition of Rs.1,52,91,550/- u/s 68 of the Act to the income of the assessee. 3. Against such order, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before

MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

143(2). No such notice was issued and therefore order is bad. ACIT vs.\nHotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC).\n\n8. Addition u/s 68 : (a) That the learned Authorities below have grossly erred in law\nand facts in invoking section

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), INDORE, INDORE vs. DIVINE INFRACREATION AND TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly quash the assessment-order made by AO.\nThe assessee's ground is allowed

ITA 272/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2025AY 2010-11
Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 68(1)

sections": [ "144", "147", "153(6)", "68", "68(1)", "148", "143(2)", "143(3)", "234A(3)", "13", "11", "253", "254", "80-1", "292BB

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

ITA 120/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar. S.V, Advocate and Sri Joseph VargheseFor Respondent: Sri Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 250Section 69

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?" 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143

SHRI. BANGALORE NARAYAN DAS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 & 2017-18 stands allowed

ITA 121/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A Nos. 120 & 121/Bang/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar. S.V, Advocate and Sri Joseph VargheseFor Respondent: Sri Gudimella V.P.Pavan Kumar
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 153Section 234ASection 250Section 69

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside?" 4. The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143

SHRI GOVIND NARAIN JOHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 287/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Although The Second Round Of Assessment Was Completed At The Directions Of Hon’Ble Itat.

For Appellant: Shri Hanif Khan (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Manisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

143(2) by the ld. AO was void ab initio and was liable to be quashed holding that the appellant did not dispute such issue before although the second round of assessment was completed at the directions of Hon’ble ITAT. 2 M/s. Handmade Paper & Board Industries, Jaipur. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

SHRI RAI SINGH SIHAG,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 441/JPR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok kr. Gupta &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 68

143(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The action of Ld. AO is illegal unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing entire re-assessment proceedings, being void and illegal. ACIT Vs Hotel Blue Moon 188 Taxman 113 (SC) Taxancore Diagnostice (P) Lt. Vs ACIT 390 ITR 167 (Kerala) (SC) 3. Sanction

COSMAT TRADERS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 457/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2012-13
Section 120Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

68 of the Act on the basis of arbitrary and perverse conclusions drawn by him on the facts of the cases relying on several arbitrary and perverse conclusions drawn by him on the facts of the cases relying on several arbitrary and perverse conclusions drawn by him on the facts of the cases relying on several judgments

M/S. WEEDO VENTURES PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. EQUAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T. O., WARD, 9(2), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee

ITA 2129/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd......……………………..................................……………..…….............Appellant [Earlier Known As M/S. Equal Projects Pvt. Ltd.] Property No. 11 Block-A, Maharana Pratap Enclave Pitampura Delhi - 110034 [Pan : Aacce 4580 C]

Section 14ASection 2Section 250

section 14A read with rule 8D interalia interalia making an addition of Rs.1,46,785/-. 2.1. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority

M/S. WEEDO VENTURES PVT. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. EQUAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. CIT(A)-3, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee

ITA 2535/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Weedo Ventures Pvt. Ltd......……………………..................................……………..…….............Appellant [Earlier Known As M/S. Equal Projects Pvt. Ltd.] Property No. 11 Block-A, Maharana Pratap Enclave Pitampura Delhi - 110034 [Pan : Aacce 4580 C]

Section 14ASection 2Section 250

section 14A read with rule 8D interalia interalia making an addition of Rs.1,46,785/-. 2.1. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority

ITO WARD - 14(2), NEW DELHI vs. KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 9287/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

143(3) - Share Capital – section 68 16,00,00,000 C A - Advances – section 68 2,60,00,000 C A 9. Sintex

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-14(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 9357/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

143(3) - Share Capital – section 68 16,00,00,000 C A - Advances – section 68 2,60,00,000 C A 9. Sintex

KASPER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-14(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 510/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

143(3) - Share Capital – section 68 16,00,00,000 C A - Advances – section 68 2,60,00,000 C A 9. Sintex

JINGLE BELLS ALUMINIUM,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 13(3), NEW DELHI

ITA 5397/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

143(3) - Share Capital – section 68 16,00,00,000 C A - Advances – section 68 2,60,00,000 C A 9. Sintex

ITO WARD - 13(3), NEW DELHI vs. JINGLE BELLS ALUMINIUM PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 5527/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

143(3) - Share Capital – section 68 16,00,00,000 C A - Advances – section 68 2,60,00,000 C A 9. Sintex

LANDSKY REAL ESTATES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-15(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 509/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

143(3) - Share Capital – section 68 16,00,00,000 C A - Advances – section 68 2,60,00,000 C A 9. Sintex