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.

251 results for “section 68”+ Section 4clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi10,779Mumbai9,498Kolkata3,158Bangalore2,562Ahmedabad2,218Chennai2,144Jaipur1,527Hyderabad1,402Pune1,328Surat944Chandigarh900Karnataka808Indore806Cochin641Rajkot470Raipur460Visakhapatnam400Lucknow310Nagpur276Amritsar272Agra251Cuttack242Guwahati234Telangana165Ranchi153Calcutta152Patna147Jodhpur140SC130Jabalpur120Panaji109Dehradun105Allahabad104Varanasi50Rajasthan22Orissa13Kerala13Punjab & Haryana6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Uttarakhand4Gauhati3Andhra Pradesh2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Himachal Pradesh1Tripura1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)49Section 6842Addition to Income37Section 14832Section 26325Section 14719Section 145(3)15Section 25011Section 143(2)11Cash 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

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 68 with respect to loan could not be sustained. 20. The coordinate bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of ITO Vs. Alpha Contech Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.3351/Del/2016 vide order dt. 28.07.2023 has held as under: “7. On careful consideration of above rival submission, first of all, we note that the Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68

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

Showing 1–20 of 251 · Page 1 of 13

...
11
Natural Justice9
Unexplained Cash Credit8
ITA 343/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 | P a g e ITA No.344 & 343/Agr/2025 proposal of the Assessing Officer, which vitiates the entire proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act. 3. Because the learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of 718,23,00,000/- under section 68

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 | P a g e ITA No.344 & 343/Agr/2025 proposal of the Assessing Officer, which vitiates the entire proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act. 3. Because the learned CIT(A) NFAC has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of 718,23,00,000/- under section 68

VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. ACIT, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 212/AGR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 68

4. source of capital introduction of Rs.92,00,000/- and hence the same was again treated as unaccounted income of the assessee under section 68

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

4. The appellant assessee has raised following grounds under this second appeal: “1. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, learned authorities below have been arbitrary, wrong, and illegal in making addition of Rs. 33,00,923 under section 68

SHRI OM PRAKASH SINGH,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, AGRA

In the result appeal is partly allowed

ITA 331/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 144Section 234BSection 44ASection 68

4 is partly allowed. 11. Vide Ground of Appeal No. 5, assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- under section 68

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act." It is requested that the above grounds now being taken as additional legal grounds No. 9,10 and 11 may kindly be admitted and obliged.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that as per information available with the Assessing Officer on AIMS Module of ITBA, it was observed by the Assessing

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

68 ITR 457] it was pointed out that if the payment made by the resident to the non-resident was an amount which was not chargeable to tax in India, then no tax is deductible at source even though the assessee had not made an application under Section 18(3B) (now Section

B K KESHARWANI, AGRA vs. MADHUR MITTAL, AGRA

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 536/AGR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Apr 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Ld Cit(A), Who Partly Allowed

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 80C

4. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the transactions claimed by the assessee are entirely in cash, unsupported by banking channels which inherently makes the claim unverifiable and doubtful, and the burden of proof under section 68

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

4 | P a g e account. In the absence of any such adverse finding, the presumption that the cash re-deposited emanated from unexplained sources is wholly unwarranted. Therefore, it was contended that the addition made under section 68

NEETA AGARWAL,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 2(1)(2), AGRA, AGRA

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

ITA 213/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Neeta Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-23, New Agra, Agra Ward-2(1)(2), Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpa0936E Assessee By : Shri Amit Goyal, Adv Shri Nitin Goyal, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goyal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

section 68 was not applicable. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner

M/S VERMA SERVICE STATION,FIROZABAD vs. D.C.I.T., RANGE-5, FIROZABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 349/AGR/2018[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Sept 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

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

section 68 and added to the total income of the assessee. In the 2nd round of assessment,the assessee again could not explain the 4

ACIT, C 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA vs. SUNIL KUMAR JOSHAN, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 494/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhacit, Vs. Sunil Kumar Joshan, Foot On Shoes, 7Th Circle-2(1)(1), Agra Km Stone, Agra Delhi Bye Pass Road, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abqpj4015P Co 07/Agr/2025 (In Ita No.494/Agr/2025) (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sunil Kumar Joshan, Vs. Acit, Foot On Shoes, 7Th Km Circle-2(1)(1), Stone, Agra Delhi Bye Agra Pass Road, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abqpj4015P

For Appellant: Shri Sahib P. Satsangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

68 read with section 115BBE of the Act without conducting any enquiries on his side. The following are the documentary evidences submitted by the assessee before the Learned AO to prove the nature and source of credit of the aforesaid sums:- Sl Particulars PB No. Page No. 1 Invitation letter of PHI Singapore dated 28.08.2012 with enclosures

RUBY JAIN,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), AGRA

In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows :

ITA 128/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshruby Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1/78A, Kale Ka Tall, Delhi Ward-1(1)(3), Gate, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aevpj4936P Assessee By : Shri K. K. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri K. K. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

4. The ld AO merely placed reliance on the Kolkata Investigation Wing Report, which investigated 84 scrips by categorizing the same as penny stock where the price of shares were artificially rigged abnormally in connivance with certain entry providers/promoters, etc with a view to give undue benefit of exemption of long-term capital gains or short-term capital loss

MANISH MAHESHWARI,GWALIOR vs. JCIT RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 308/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Him Though Specific Request Was Made To Admit The Same. Ground No. 2 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed Theaddition Of Rs. 67,530/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act. (Ii) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Legally Erred In Rejecting The Appellant'Sspecificsubmissionand The Unavoidable Circumstances Under Which The Payment Wasmade. Ground No. 3 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed An Addition Of Rs. 1,11,038/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Disallowing The Claim Of Interest Paid Holding The Same To Be Not Allowable U/S 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act.”

Section 133Section 40A(3)Section 57Section 68

section 68 of the Act.” 4. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the additional evidence furnished

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. M/S. UNITED FARM PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED, AGRA

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 299/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhacit, Cc, Vs. M/S. United Farm Product Pvt. Ltd., 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002 (Agra) (Pan :Aaccu2505M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Shri Deependra Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 04.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kanpur – 4 Dated 28.03.2025 For Assessment Year2022-23 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “L. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,71,37,934/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act Incurred For Construction Of Plant At Mewat, Haryana, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Company Itself Has Surrendered Amount Of Rs.41,40,35,700/- & Admitted To Take The Unexplained Expenditure At Rs.43,71,37,934/- Incurred In The 2 Construction Of Said Plant. Hence, The Addition Made By The Ao Is Based On Admittance By The Assessee, Which Is Corroborated By The Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition. Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessing Officer Has Passed The Assessment Order After Thoroughly Examining & Analysing The Seized Material & Proper Appreciation Of Facts Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 69C

4-5 of the assessment order.  Para 7.1 page 23: Since the chat with Miswa, Bhulu Unnao are either not clearly linked to the appellate company or are not related to the year under consideration, hence, are of no evidentiary value, and cannot be said to be evidence in the eyes of law.  Para 7.1 page 23: The appellate company

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 251/AGR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 68

4 ors. “Section 68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Gift) Assessment

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 303/AGR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 68

4 ors. “Section 68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Gift) Assessment

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, AGRA

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 301/AGR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhhma Agro Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Opp. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002. (Pan :Aacch0450J)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40ASection 68

4 ors. “Section 68 read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Gift) Assessment