Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

214 results for “section 68”+ Section 251clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi793 Mumbai735 Karnataka471 Ahmedabad214 Bangalore195 Jaipur192 Chennai129 Hyderabad104 Kolkata103 Chandigarh99 Raipur97 Surat95 Indore64 Pune62 Cochin59 Rajkot44 Nagpur44 Lucknow40 Guwahati35 Telangana35 Visakhapatnam21 Calcutta19 Patna13 Amritsar12 Allahabad9 Panaji9 Jodhpur8 Cuttack8 Dehradun7 Agra5 Rajasthan5 Kerala5 Ranchi4 SC4 Jabalpur4 Varanasi4 Orissa3 Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income74 Section 143(3)61 Section 14745 Section 6845 Section 14A39 Disallowance39 Section 14825 Section 13224 Section 14422 Section 250

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1277/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

251 wherein it was held as under: “Head Note: Section 68, read with section 143, of the Income

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1278/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Showing 1–20 of 214 · Page 1 of 11

...

19

Transfer Pricing18

Section 250Section 68

251 wherein it was held as under: “Head Note: Section 68, read with section 143, of the Income

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1392/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

251 wherein it was held as under: “Head Note: Section 68, read with section 143, of the Income

SHRI NARENDRA B. PATEL,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, HIMATNAGAR

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

ITA 3153/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3153/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Narendra B. Patel, I.T.O., 592, Pampaliva Vas, Vs. Ward-2, Moyad, Himatnagar. Sabarkantha-383110. Pan: Asupp6989M

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 68Section 69

68 of the Act by observing that the assessee failed to explain the source of money in the hands of the party who has made the payment on behalf of the assessee for making the investments. However, the learned CIT-A has confirmed the addition under the provisions of section 69 of the Act considering the impugned investments

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA -HUF, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 795/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 795/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.169/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., Dharmenbhai M. Sutaria, Huf Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 16-B, Jadav Chamber, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aafhd1653K

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT,D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 68

section 148 for the concerned assessment year 2010-11 so as to say that the case of the Respondent cannot be reopened on the strength of subject matter of reasons recorded by the Ld. AO as the reasons are based out of seized material so impounded from the premises of Barter Group relevant to A.Y. 2011-12 and thus

THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CAPAXO LOGISTICS PVT. LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1264/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1264/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.190/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 I.T.O., M/S. Capaxo Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. 302, Third Floor, Ahmedabad. 3Rd Eye, C.G.Cross Road, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT. D.R

251 (Gujarat), the With C.O.No.190/Ahd/2019 Asstt. Year 2010-11 7 genuineness of the transaction cannot be doubted. The appellant has also relied upon decision of Hon'bie Supreme Court in the case Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. in which the Hon'bie Court has held that prior to amendment to proviso to section 68

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI. SURESHCHANDRA SHANTILAL BRAHMBHATT, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1549/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Shri. Sureshchandra Shantilal Ward-1(2)(4), Ahmedabad, Brahmbhatt, Room No. 220, V. 4 Shreenath Bangalow Part-2 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Matrushree Party Plot, Near Sachin Tower, Vejalpur, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad-380005 Ahmedabad-380051, Gujarat Gujarat Pan:Actpb8904H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. Ar & Sh. Parimalsinh Parmar, Ar Revenue By: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.04.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Tushar Hemani, Sr. AR & Sh. ParimalsinhFor Respondent: Sh. Prasad Rao Waghe Annasaheb, Sr. DR

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

251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271.]” Similarly, for the remaining additions to the tune of Rs. 1,01,00,000/- as were made by the AO, we have observed that the assessee has merely filed confirmations from the parties and in case of loans raised from Ms. Nidhi Vikas Borat even confirmations was not filed

M/S. DESCHEM TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, BARODA

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

ITA 1551/AHD/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1551/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006 M/S Deschem Technologies Resources I.T.O., Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ward-1(2), 106 To 108, Baroda. Shreeji Avenue, Opp. New India Mill, Jetapur Road, Baroda-390035. Pan: Aabcd7163P

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, with Shri P.B. Parmar A.RsFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 10BSection 68

68 of the Act. In case, the assessee is denied from filing the additional documents then there will be huge tax demand on the assessee in the present facts of the case. Thus it is transpired that there will be huge outflow of fund of the assessee in the form of the tax liability which could have been made nil/avoided

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 45/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

68 of the Act. Accordingly, CIT(Appeals) held that since the assessee failed to establish these requirements, he upheld the addition of Rs. 1,01,79,388/- made by the AO as unexplained credit under Section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed. ITA Nos. 45to47/Ahd/2025 & 266&267/Ahd/2025 Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

68 of the Act. Accordingly, CIT(Appeals) held that since the assessee failed to establish these requirements, he upheld the addition of Rs. 1,01,79,388/- made by the AO as unexplained credit under Section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed. ITA Nos. 45to47/Ahd/2025 & 266&267/Ahd/2025 Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 266/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

68 of the Act. Accordingly, CIT(Appeals) held that since the assessee failed to establish these requirements, he upheld the addition of Rs. 1,01,79,388/- made by the AO as unexplained credit under Section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed. ITA Nos. 45to47/Ahd/2025 & 266&267/Ahd/2025 Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 47/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

68 of the Act. Accordingly, CIT(Appeals) held that since the assessee failed to establish these requirements, he upheld the addition of Rs. 1,01,79,388/- made by the AO as unexplained credit under Section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed. ITA Nos. 45to47/Ahd/2025 & 266&267/Ahd/2025 Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri HargovindFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

68 of the Act. Accordingly, CIT(Appeals) held that since the assessee failed to establish these requirements, he upheld the addition of Rs. 1,01,79,388/- made by the AO as unexplained credit under Section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed. ITA Nos. 45to47/Ahd/2025 & 266&267/Ahd/2025 Nikulbhai Chaturbhai Patel

SANJAY JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 79/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-2015 Sanjay Jayantilal Shah Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 202/A, Shivalik 10 Vs. Vejalpur Opp: Sbi Zonal Office Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aktps 8891 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2014–15, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Assessing Officer Or Ao"].

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69C

section 251(1)(a) could not have been invoked by the ld. CIT(A). 3.3 It was contended that the ld. CIT(A) has misdirected himself by assuming jurisdiction to set aside the order, whereas his duty was to decide the appeal on merits and adjudicate the additions made u/s 68

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-12,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3048/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin

Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

251 of the Act.” The 1st interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned 4. CIT-A or in confirming the addition made by the AO in part ₹ 37,81,224/- & further enhancing the addition for unaccounted purchases of Rs. 2,09,23,747/- u/s 69C of the Act. 4.1 The facts in brief are that the assessee

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 127/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin

Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

251 of the Act.” The 1st interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned 4. CIT-A or in confirming the addition made by the AO in part ₹ 37,81,224/- & further enhancing the addition for unaccounted purchases of Rs. 2,09,23,747/- u/s 69C of the Act. 4.1 The facts in brief are that the assessee

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,VII,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 844/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin

Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

251 of the Act.” The 1st interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned 4. CIT-A or in confirming the addition made by the AO in part ₹ 37,81,224/- & further enhancing the addition for unaccounted purchases of Rs. 2,09,23,747/- u/s 69C of the Act. 4.1 The facts in brief are that the assessee

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 126/AHD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin

Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

251 of the Act.” The 1st interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned 4. CIT-A or in confirming the addition made by the AO in part ₹ 37,81,224/- & further enhancing the addition for unaccounted purchases of Rs. 2,09,23,747/- u/s 69C of the Act. 4.1 The facts in brief are that the assessee

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 128/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin

Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

251 of the Act.” The 1st interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned 4. CIT-A or in confirming the addition made by the AO in part ₹ 37,81,224/- & further enhancing the addition for unaccounted purchases of Rs. 2,09,23,747/- u/s 69C of the Act. 4.1 The facts in brief are that the assessee

THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3336/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & Shri Parin

Section 23Section 251Section 271Section 69C

251 of the Act.” The 1st interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned 4. CIT-A or in confirming the addition made by the AO in part ₹ 37,81,224/- & further enhancing the addition for unaccounted purchases of Rs. 2,09,23,747/- u/s 69C of the Act. 4.1 The facts in brief are that the assessee