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.

193 results for “section 68”+ Section 138clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi731 Mumbai542 Karnataka470 Bangalore193 Chennai192 Ahmedabad145 Jaipur139 Kolkata127 Cochin72 Hyderabad57 Calcutta53 Surat52 Chandigarh45 Raipur38 Telangana37 Indore32 Nagpur31 Pune28 Visakhapatnam24 Lucknow22 Amritsar16 Rajkot15 Allahabad12 SC12 Cuttack12 Jodhpur10 Patna9 Agra7 Rajasthan7 Dehradun5 Orissa3 Jabalpur2 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Andhra Pradesh1 Guwahati1 Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income76 Section 153A48 Section 143(3)46 Disallowance46 Section 14841 Section 25030 Section 133A25 Deduction23 Section 6821 Section 40

VISHWANATHAREDDY CHENNAREDDY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(7), BENGALURU

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

ITA 900/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI (Accountant Member), SMT. BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemasundara Rao P., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 250Section 251Section 68Section 69A

138 taxmann.com 141 where the Tribunal while considering the issue of the implication of section 68 of the Act during

SHRI. SHANTHISAGAR CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,HUBLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), HUBLI

Showing 1–20 of 193 · Page 1 of 10

...

21

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

ITA 2081/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha J, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

68 of the Act and treating the sum of ₹31,03,000/- as unexplained cash credit. 20. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The main issue in this case is whether the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetisation period, amounting

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 836/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R

Section 115BSection 142Section 143Section 250Section 271ASection 44ASection 68

section 115BBE of the Act will have no application so as to treat the income of the assessee as income from other sources. Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.836 & 837/Bang/2023 Sri Girish Mallesh, Bangalore Page 14 of 21 reported in 84 Taxman 146 on identical facts took the view

SRI. GIRISH MALLESH,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 837/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda, D.R

Section 115BSection 142Section 143Section 250Section 271ASection 44ASection 68

section 115BBE of the Act will have no application so as to treat the income of the assessee as income from other sources. Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Associated Transport Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.836 & 837/Bang/2023 Sri Girish Mallesh, Bangalore Page 14 of 21 reported in 84 Taxman 146 on identical facts took the view

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 405/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K, JCIT (DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

68.” 20 of page 24 ITA No.405/Bang/2023 S.P No.29/Bang/2023 N. As regards, without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erred in holding that the appellant has failed to respond to the notice u/s 148 dated 30.06.2021 where the return of income was duly submitted. The delay in filing the return was due to the technical issues

SHREE JADEYA SHANKARLING URBAN CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED ,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), HUBBALLI

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

ITA 2893/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh Magavi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing

Section 269SSection 68

68 of the Act and taxed under Section 115BBE of the Act. . Page 6 of 10 8.1 The assessee is a Co-operative Credit Society, and the cash deposits in question were made between 09th December 2016 to 30th December 2016. The assessee has explained that these deposits represent amounts collected from its members as loan repayments and deposits

PUKHRAJ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Pukhraj, Vs. Acit, Prop: Kissan Trading Co., Circle – 1, Bhati Complex, Shivamogga. 1St Cross Garden Area, Shivamogga – 577 202. Pan : Afjpp 7695 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

68 of the Act cannot be sustained and is therefore deleted. This ground is allowed in favour of the assessee. 12. The next issue for our consideration is the addition made under section 69C of the Act. During the year under consideration, the assessee claimed Rs.33,985/- as deduction towards housing loan interest. The AO called for details

MANGILAL,MYSORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), MYSORE

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

ITA 269/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Mangilal, Vs. Ito, Pro: Chagan Agencies, Ward – 2(4), #138, 3Rd Floor, A Block, Apmc Yard, Mysore. Bandipalya, Mysore. Pan : Ackpm 3943 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 40Section 68

138, 3rd Floor, A Block, APMC Yard, Mysore. Bandipalya, Mysore. PAN : ACKPM 3943 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue. Date of hearing : 17.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member : This is an appeal filed by the assessee

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2376/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

68 of the IT Act and the same being unsustainable in law, the addition made of Rs.16,22,07,420/- requires to be deleted and the resultant beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 23 of 50 transfer of shares be granted in the interest

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

68 of the IT Act and the same being unsustainable in law, the addition made of Rs.16,22,07,420/- requires to be deleted and the resultant beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 23 of 50 transfer of shares be granted in the interest

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2373/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

68 of the IT Act and the same being unsustainable in law, the addition made of Rs.16,22,07,420/- requires to be deleted and the resultant beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 23 of 50 transfer of shares be granted in the interest

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

68 of the IT Act and the same being unsustainable in law, the addition made of Rs.16,22,07,420/- requires to be deleted and the resultant beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the ITA Nos. 2373 to 2376/Bang/2018 Page 23 of 50 transfer of shares be granted in the interest

PRATHAMIK KRUSHI COOP LIMITED,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BAGALKOT

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

ITA 2344/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

section 68 of the Act. 11.1 It is the admitted position that the specified bank notes (cessation of liabilities) Act 2017 provides that no person shall knowingly or voluntarily hold, transfer, or receive any specified bank note on and from the appointed date i.e. 31st day of December 2016. Before 31st December 2016 i.e. between 9th November

SUNDAR RAM SHETTY NAGAR CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2391/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha T.L, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Sections 68 and 69A of the Act. 15.1 It is an admitted fact that the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 explicitly prohibits any person from knowingly or voluntarily holding, transferring, or receiving SBNs on or after the appointed date, i.e., 31st December 2016. However, before this date (i.e., between 9th November 2016 and 30th December

SUNDAR RAM SHETTY NAGAR CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, WARD-4(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2392/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Gireesha T.L, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 57Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Sections 68 and 69A of the Act. 15.1 It is an admitted fact that the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 explicitly prohibits any person from knowingly or voluntarily holding, transferring, or receiving SBNs on or after the appointed date, i.e., 31st December 2016. However, before this date (i.e., between 9th November 2016 and 30th December

SRI SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY CREDIT COOP SOCIETY LIMITED,DAVANAGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANAGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 474/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate for Standing

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 68

68 of the Act for deposit of demonetized notes were deleted. The ld. AR also submitted that section 115BBE of the Act is prospective and cannot apply to transactions before 15th December 2016, as clarified by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Ltd vs ACIT in WP 2078/2020 dated 19th November 2024. The Hon’ble Court

PRATHAMIKA KRISHI PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGA NIYAMITA MANTUR,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BAGALKOT

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

ITA 1216/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Varun Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)

Section 68Section 69

68 of the Act merely on the reasoning that this money was accepted after 8th of November 2016 when such specified banknotes were no more legal tenders. However, in . Page 3 of 6 such facts and circumstances the various Tribunals have deleted the addition made by the revenue authorities. To this effect, the ld. AR before us drawn our attention

PRATHAMIKA KRUSHI PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA ITAGI,HAVERI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5, DAVANAGERE

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

ITA 593/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranprathamika Krushi Pattina The Income Tax Officer - 5 Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha Itagi Shree Towers, Hadai Main Pkpssn Itagi Post, Itagi Vs. Road, Opp. Drr Hospital Ranebennur Taluk Davanagere 577002 Haveri 581115 Pan – Aabap8450D Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale

Section 115BSection 5Section 68

138 330 3,03,000 Total 1339 2217 24,47,500 When enquired about the sources for making the above deposits, the assessee submitted that they represent cash received by it from its members towards repayment of loan, Pigmy collection, etc. The A.O. noticed that the Government has announced demonetization on 8.11.2016, whereby then existing Rs.1000/- & Rs.500/- currency notes were

SRI BHAGEERATHA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA,HOSADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, DAVANAGERE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 646/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept

Section 56Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

138 330 3,03,000 Total 1339 2217 24,47,500 When enquired about the sources for making the above deposits, the assessee submitted that they represent cash received by it from its members towards repayment of loan, Pigmy collection, etc. The A.O. noticed that the Government has announced demonetization on 8.11.2016, whereby then existing Rs.1000/- & Rs.500/- currency notes were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE vs. CENTURY REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

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

ITA 740/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar, D.R

138 ITD 443) (Del.), the coordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal has held as under: ITA No.580 & 740/Bang/2022 M/s. Century Real Estate Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 18 of 29 “Admittedly, the assessee has not served for the period of five years. The assessee has not rendered enough services to warrant emoluments of Rs.1,21,83,494/-. It is assessee