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.

157 results for “section 68”+ Section 46Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi765Mumbai475Ahmedabad157Kolkata148Hyderabad127Chennai104Jaipur90Bangalore88Indore79Chandigarh59Pune58Surat53Raipur49Amritsar47Rajkot40Guwahati34Visakhapatnam31Allahabad25Lucknow24Cuttack24Agra15Nagpur14Patna9Jodhpur7Dehradun7Cochin6Jabalpur5Varanasi5Ranchi4Telangana3Calcutta2SC2Gauhati1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 68112Addition to Income96Section 143(3)61Disallowance55Section 25028Section 143(2)26Natural Justice24Deduction23Penalty22Cash Deposit

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

Section 68 by submitting loan confirmations, bank statements, and PAN data. The assessee has provided sufficient evidences to discharge its onus as cast u/s 68 of the Act. Once this initial burden is met, the onus shifts to the Revenue to disprove the evidence provided. The Ld. CIT(A) has given finding of each lender based upon evidences which

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 Ahmedabad

Showing 1–20 of 157 · Page 1 of 8

...
21
Unexplained Cash Credit20
Section 153A19
18 Mar 2026
AY 2014-15

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

Section 250Section 68

Section 68 by submitting loan confirmations, bank statements, and PAN data. The assessee has provided sufficient evidences to discharge its onus as cast u/s 68 of the Act. Once this initial burden is met, the onus shifts to the Revenue to disprove the evidence provided. The Ld. CIT(A) has given finding of each lender based upon evidences which

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

Section 250Section 68

Section 68 by submitting loan confirmations, bank statements, and PAN data. The assessee has provided sufficient evidences to discharge its onus as cast u/s 68 of the Act. Once this initial burden is met, the onus shifts to the Revenue to disprove the evidence provided. The Ld. CIT(A) has given finding of each lender based upon evidences which

SHRI UMIYA COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. ,1, SENETARY ROAD , KUTCHHI PATIDAR VADI, PETLAD TAL. PETLAD DIST. ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 277/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 56Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

46A. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grievously erred in law and on facts in charging tax of Rs. 63,85,500/- u/s 115BBE in respect of addition of Rs. 1,06,47,500/- made as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. The appellant prays to delete the tax of Rs. 63,88,500/- charged

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRASPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 547/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 131Section 133ASection 150Section 292CSection 34Section 69B

section 68 of the Act. 111. In view of the above, we set aside the finding Ld. CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 112. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.2130&2131/Ahd/2017 & ITA No. 398/Ahd/2018 & 547/Ahd/2018 A.Ys

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2130/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 131Section 133ASection 150Section 292CSection 34Section 69B

section 68 of the Act. 111. In view of the above, we set aside the finding Ld. CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 112. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.2130&2131/Ahd/2017 & ITA No. 398/Ahd/2018 & 547/Ahd/2018 A.Ys

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2131/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 131Section 133ASection 150Section 292CSection 34Section 69B

section 68 of the Act. 111. In view of the above, we set aside the finding Ld. CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 112. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.2130&2131/Ahd/2017 & ITA No. 398/Ahd/2018 & 547/Ahd/2018 A.Ys

JAS INFRASPACE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 131Section 133ASection 150Section 292CSection 34Section 69B

section 68 of the Act. 111. In view of the above, we set aside the finding Ld. CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made by him. Hence the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 112. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.2130&2131/Ahd/2017 & ITA No. 398/Ahd/2018 & 547/Ahd/2018 A.Ys

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 rather it is a case where the assessee has made the submissions in accordance with the provisions of section 69 of the Act. Therefore, we find it difficult to convince ourselves with the contention of the learned AR for the assessee. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the learned AR for the assessee

ITO WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VALLEY COMTRADE PVT LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS JHAWAR COMTRADE PVT. LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2034/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT. D.R with Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.D.R
Section 13(1)(d)Section 68

section 131(1)(d) of the Act. The relevant contents of the letter appointing the commission reads as under: "5. In view of the above and in view of the fact that the above-mentioned eight \ entities are based in your territorial jurisdiction, you are requested to kindly \ inquire into the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of these entities

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

section 68 of the Act. Assessee also moved an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. However

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 that appeared in the two accepted bank accounts, but only after proper verification. As for the other two additions Rs. 18.30 lakhs for a loan given to Shreeji Marketing and Rs. 1.27 crores for a loan given to SBPL Finance Corporation, the CIT(A) held that these additions were unjustified. Since both amounts were duly recorded

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 that appeared in the two accepted bank accounts, but only after proper verification. As for the other two additions Rs. 18.30 lakhs for a loan given to Shreeji Marketing and Rs. 1.27 crores for a loan given to SBPL Finance Corporation, the CIT(A) held that these additions were unjustified. Since both amounts were duly recorded

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 that appeared in the two accepted bank accounts, but only after proper verification. As for the other two additions Rs. 18.30 lakhs for a loan given to Shreeji Marketing and Rs. 1.27 crores for a loan given to SBPL Finance Corporation, the CIT(A) held that these additions were unjustified. Since both amounts were duly recorded

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 that appeared in the two accepted bank accounts, but only after proper verification. As for the other two additions Rs. 18.30 lakhs for a loan given to Shreeji Marketing and Rs. 1.27 crores for a loan given to SBPL Finance Corporation, the CIT(A) held that these additions were unjustified. Since both amounts were duly recorded

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 that appeared in the two accepted bank accounts, but only after proper verification. As for the other two additions Rs. 18.30 lakhs for a loan given to Shreeji Marketing and Rs. 1.27 crores for a loan given to SBPL Finance Corporation, the CIT(A) held that these additions were unjustified. Since both amounts were duly recorded

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

46A is not merely an empty formality. The onus is on the assessee to prove satisfactorily nature and source thereof , and the assessee is required to prove three ingredients of Section 68

SHAUNAK SHAILESH SHAH ,9, NEELKANTH BUNGLOW, PRAHLADNAGAR, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 15(4),, 7TH FLOOR, NATURE VIEW BUILDING, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD 380009

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1421/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1421/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shaunak Shailesh Shah, I.T.O., 9, Neelkanth Bunglow, Vs. Ward-15(4), Prahladnagar, Ahmedabad. Satellite, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, with Shri P.B. Parmar A.RsFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.D.R
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 234ASection 271Section 68

section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT-A. 4. The assessee before the Ld. CIT-A submits that the cash amounting to Rs. 1,11,01,300.00 was deposited out of the cash received from various person during the year under consideration. The assessee in support his contention, in pursuance

THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. EAM FRUITS LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1835/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1835/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2016-2017 I.T.O, Eam Fruits Llp, Ward-7(2)(2), Vs. 23, New Fruit Market, Ahmedabad. Naroda Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad-380025. Pan: Aadfe6711B

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.78,50,469/- though the assessee was not able to prove the genuineness of these transactions. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained Unsecured loan of Rs.47,50,000/- though the assessee was not able to establish the identity

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI RAMESH GOBARJI THAKOR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 59/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Income-Tax Officer Vs. Shri Ramesh Gobarji Thakor Ward-3 Sector 11 Gandhinagar. Gandhinagar. Pan : Aespt 3446 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ars. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate and Shri Parin Shah, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 250Section 68

68 of the Act ". ii) "Whether, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax(appeals) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the additional evidences without drawing satisfaction on one or more of the circumstances laid down in Rule 46A of the I. T. Rules, 1962, when the AO has given ample opportunities to the assessee to furnish the requisite