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 68clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi10,878Mumbai9,574Kolkata3,169Bangalore2,563Ahmedabad2,240Chennai2,150Jaipur1,536Hyderabad1,403Pune1,336Surat946Chandigarh908Karnataka811Indore807Cochin642Rajkot472Raipur460Visakhapatnam400Lucknow311Nagpur277Amritsar273Agra251Cuttack243Guwahati235Calcutta180Telangana168Ranchi153Patna147Jodhpur140SC132Jabalpur120Panaji109Dehradun106Allahabad104Varanasi50Rajasthan22Orissa15Kerala13Punjab & Haryana7A.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 of the act needs to be referred, which reads as under: 68. Where any sum is found

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 Agra

Showing 1–20 of 251 · Page 1 of 13

...
11
Natural Justice9
Unexplained Cash Credit8
11 Sept 2019
AY 2009-10

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

Section 68

Section 68. Under Section 68, the onus is on the assessee to offer explanation where any sum is found

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 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

Section 68 of the Act, vide assessment order dated 23.12.2019, passed under Sections 147/143(3) of the Act. 5. Aggrievedby

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

Section 68 of the Act, vide assessment order dated 23.12.2019, passed under Sections 147/143(3) of the Act. 5. Aggrievedby

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

section 68, read with section 115BBE of the Act and added 2 | P a g e the same

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

section 68 can be validly made after rejecting the books of account as the credits pertains to same

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

section 68 are not applicable. In view of this issue, whether the passbook is books of account or not is no more

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 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, the NFAC has sustained Rs.2,65,518/-, relief

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

68 of the Act and therefore the same to deserves to be restored. 2. That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the assessee had discharged the onus under section

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

section 68 of the Act, and made addition of Rs.1,24,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act, vide

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

68 of the Act by the lower authorities. I am in agreement with the argument advanced by the ld AR that assessee is not bound to maintain books of account and hence the provisions of Section

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

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

Section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act without conducting any enquiries on his side. The following

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

Section 68, read with section 260A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits - Assessment year 1989-90 - Assessing

SANJANA GUPTA,JHANSI vs. ITO-WARD-2(3)(1) JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/AGR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 Jan 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsanjana Gupta, Vs. Ito, 130, Gudri Bazar, Jhansi Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Awbpg1536E Assessee By : Smt Prathna Jalan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt Prathna Jalan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 50C(2)

Section 68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. 17. In view

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

68 is justified. Since the assessee's claim in terms of vital ingredients of section 68 i.e. the identity

AKHIL BHARTIYA GAHOI VAISHAY CHARITABLE TRUST,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD EXEMPLTION

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 183/AGR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 154Section 68

section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act was stated to be pending before the Learned

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act in regard to the nature and source of the cash credits

AMIT GANDHI,GWALIOR vs. BPL-W-(41)-(91), GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 76/AGR/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhamit Gandhi, Vs. Faceless Assessment Unit, Parking No. 4, Main Delhi Road Transport Nagar, Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afdpg7862E Assessee By : Shri Vishal Gupta, Ca Shri Anant Gupta, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 19/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2026

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained cash credit in respect of loans received from two parties

PUSHPA,MATHURA vs. ITO-1(2)(3), MATHURA

In the result,both appeals are allowed

ITA 332/AGR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenashri. Pushpendra Singh. Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Dldps6755P (Appellant) (Respondent) Smt. Pushpa Vs.. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(3), M-22, Phase-I, Mahavidhya Colony. Agra. Mathura. Pan: Bcopd0484L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148

section 68 of the Act (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) concluded its findings holding that “In the circumstances, the question