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.

46 results for “section 68”+ Section 250(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,670Delhi2,122Kolkata1,065Bangalore657Jaipur586Ahmedabad580Chennai525Karnataka443Surat377Hyderabad301Chandigarh291Pune247Raipur200Indore191Rajkot173Amritsar166Cochin163Guwahati130Lucknow92Nagpur86Patna82Visakhapatnam80Allahabad66Panaji58Cuttack54Calcutta52Jodhpur51Agra46Telangana41Dehradun27Jabalpur25Ranchi23SC13Varanasi10Rajasthan7Orissa2Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 6852Addition to Income44Section 14840Section 14738Section 25031Section 143(3)21Section 14415Section 115B13Section 145(3)13Cash Deposit

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

section 68. SLP dismissed by Supreme Court reported at 258 Tахтап\n160 (SC).\n17.3 It was held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Blessing Construction Vs ITO [2013] 214\nТахтап 645 (Gujarat) where sizeable amounts were deposited in cash in account of\ndepositors only before their withdrawal through cheques in favour of assessee, addition\nwas justified. Surrounding Circumstances

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 343/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3

13
Unexplained Cash Credit12
Natural Justice9
29 Dec 2025
AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

4, Kolkata vide report dated 22.03.2018, reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act were initiated by issuing notice under section 148 on 13.09.2018 after seeking prior approval of the competent authority, i.e., PCIT-2, Agra under section 151 of the Act. Based on such information available as per the reasons recorded and subsequent information received from ADIT

HARDAYAL MILK PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SHIKOHABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), FIROZABAD, FIROZABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 344/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

4, Kolkata vide report dated 22.03.2018, reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act were initiated by issuing notice under section 148 on 13.09.2018 after seeking prior approval of the competent authority, i.e., PCIT-2, Agra under section 151 of the Act. Based on such information available as per the reasons recorded and subsequent information received from ADIT

JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,AGRA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 454/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18, wherein learned CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Brief facts state that the assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) engaged in the business of trading in silver and gold ornaments under the name and style/proprietorship

ITO 1(2), GWALIOR vs. SMT REENA AGRAWAL, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 54Section 54F

4) The amount of the net consideration which is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase of the new asset made within one year before the date on which the transfer of the original asset took place, or which is not utilised by him for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing

SOURABH KUMAR SONI,ASHOKNAGAR (M.P) vs. ITO - ASHOKNAGAR, ASHOKNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 71/AGR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra27 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 127Section 144Section 250

250 that the assessee has only submitted only the bank statement and no other proof which is clearly Incorrect. The assessee has attached the Bank statements, reconciliation of the bank statement with the deposited made during the demonetisation period, copy of statement of MP Online and the assessee has In point no 5,6,7 of the submission stated

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 415/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein learned CIT(A) has allowed assessee’s first appeal for statistical purposes, deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 2. Briefly stating, the appellant assessee is a partnership firm and was engaged in the business of manufacturing and export

LOKENDRA KUMAR GAUTAM,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD, 1(3)(2), MATHURA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 335/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. Briefly stating, the facts are that the assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Pan Masala and Zarda as proprietor of M/s Radha

RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3)(1),, ETAH

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 239/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 250Section 250oSection 68

250 of the Act is bad in law and on facts and deserves to be quashed. 2. BECAUSE, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of 1,00,00,000/- made by the AO under section 68 of the Act on account of cash deposit during the demonetization period without due consideration of the fact

SHARAD MAHESHWARI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), GWALIOR (M. P.), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 316/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sharad Maheshwari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, W-63, 3Rd Floor, Ward-3(2), Greater Kailash-2, Gwalior South Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afepa7981H Assessee By : Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

4. That, the appellant craves leave to add, amend, withdraw any ground (s) of appeal before and or at the time or hearing.” 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 was filed by the assessee on 27-03-2017 declaring total income

VEENA SINGH,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 324/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 253(3)Section 68

68 r.w.s. 115BBE. After allowing Chapter VIA deductions, the total assessed income was determined at Rs.1,09,52,440/-. 4. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte. 5. Assessee has filed the second appeal on the various grounds on merits of additions made by Assessing Officer. 6. Perused the records

ARJUN TRADING CO. PVT. LTD.,FIROZABAD vs. I.T.O.-5(1), FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 290/AGR/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Agra08 Jun 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaarjun Trading Company Private Vs..Ito-5,(1), Ltd. A-4, Ganesh Nagar, Firozabad. Firozabad. Panno.Aadca7230J (Assessee) (Revenue)

Section 234ASection 234BSection 254Section 68

section 68 of the Act, in respect of the following parties: Name of share applicants Share application money received J SINGH TRADING & INVESTMENT 500,000 PVT. LTD. 300,000 MODI ROAD LINES PVT, LTD. 300,000 VIKAS TAYAL 200,000 PERFORMANCE TRADING & 500,000 H.V. TRADERS PVT. LTD. 400,000 ABM ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES PVT. 250,000 LTD. ADISH JAIN

M/S DEEPRAJ HOSPITAL P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 41/AGR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 68

250(4) can be used as an evidence against the assessee for making the impugned addition. That though already submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee further wish to submit as under:- i) Reason recorded for initiating proceedings are totally wrong and against the facts of the case. ii) The assessee fully discharge

M/S CHARAN SINGH ICE & STORAGE P LTD,HATHRAS vs. ITO 3(5), HATHRAS

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 40/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra01 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

Section 147Section 148Section 68

250(4) can be used as an evidence against the assessee for making the impugned addition. That though already submitted during the course of assessment proceedings and before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee further wish to submit as under:- i) Reason recorded for initiating proceedings are totally wrong and against the facts of the case. ii) The assessee fully discharge

SH. KULDEEP SRIVASTAVA,MATHURA vs. I.T.O., WARD-3(2), MATHURA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 227/AGR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 24(3)Section 257Section 68

250/- in the names of Kanhiyalal ‘s sons. Kanhiyalal, the assesse’s managing partner, disavowed all knowledge as to the capacity of the creditors to advance the said amounts and, in fact, he admitted that the creditors had no independent source of income and he could not explain the said cash credits. The assesse, however, contended that the creditors

HARI OM AGARWAL,KOLARAS vs. ITO SHIVPURI, ASHOK NAGAR

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

ITA 91/AGR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 37

4 That under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the penalty by issuing notice under section 270A of the Act 1961 without applying his mind at the time of passing the assessment order is bad and unsustainable in law 5 That for these such other grounds that

MR. PRADEEP KUMAR,ALIGARH vs. ITO., WARD-4(2)(5), MAINPURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 63/AGR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

250(4). No remand report was called for by ld. CIT(A) from the AO nor Ld. CIT(A) did not considered appropriate to call for assessment records. Sr. DR could 10 | P a g e not controvert the same. I have observed that the assessee has duly demonstrated on merits the fulfilment ingredients of section 68

KASTURI DEVI,ETAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , ETAH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. At the very outset, we notice that this second appeal was filed on 03.01.2025 against impugned order dated 06.05.2024 by a delay of about 182 days. None has turned

PREM LATA VERMA ,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1)(1), ALIGARH, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 441/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 10(1)Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

68 of the Act and Rs.15,00,000/- as income from other sources, assessing total income at Rs.4,29,42,320/-. 4. Assessee filed first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals). Assessee remained un-responded before the first appellate authority against various notices issued u/s. 250 of the Act. Learned CIT(Appeals) dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte and confirmed

KNP ASSOCIATES,AGRA vs. WARD 1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 547/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshknp Associates, Vs. Acit, 10, Panchwati Colony, Circle-1, Vinay Nagar, Bodla, Agra Nashik (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaufk5403H Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Molhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Molhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145Section 145(3)Section 250

250 of the Act. The Appeal filed by KNP Associates the Appellant has been dismissed for non-prosecution. No findings have been given on merit, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 3. BECAUSE, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case the order passed by the Id Assessing officer dated