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.

557 results for “section 68”+ Section 139clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,171 Mumbai1,630 Jaipur689 Kolkata593 Bangalore557 Karnataka511 Chennai465 Ahmedabad416 Hyderabad296 Chandigarh261 Pune260 Surat254 Indore208 Cochin156 Visakhapatnam138 Rajkot109 Nagpur106 Agra96 Amritsar90 Raipur85 Guwahati72 Lucknow64 Cuttack54 Calcutta54 Jodhpur52 Patna41 Telangana39 Allahabad27 SC23 Ranchi17 Varanasi14 Jabalpur12 Panaji8 Rajasthan7 Dehradun7 Orissa5 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 Andhra Pradesh1 Tripura1 Uttarakhand1 Gauhati1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 153C82 Addition to Income79 Section 153A51 Section 13244 Disallowance34 Section 14833 Section 4032 Section 143(3)29 Section 6828 Section 10A

AJIT VASANT PAI,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

ITA 741/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri H. Anil Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K R Narayana, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(1)(a)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 142Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure 68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken

Showing 1–20 of 557 · Page 1 of 28

...

27

Natural Justice19

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. VASTIMAL BHIM RAJ SANCHETI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 441/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth GS, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

68. Assessee has to establish identity and ITA Nos.440, 441/Bang/2024 Page 12 of 22 creditworthiness of the creditor as well as the genuineness of the transaction. All the three ingredients are cumulative and not exclusive. (vi) In matters regarding cash credit the onus of proof is not a static one. As per the provisions of the section the initial

SRI. KALABHAIRAWESHWARA MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD., ,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHIKKAMAGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1344/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathi. Sr Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sri Kalabhairaveshwara Multi-Purpose Co- Vs. Ito, Operative Society Ltd., Ward Officer, K. M. Road,Chikmagalur District Office Ward – 1, S. O. 577 101, Karnataka. Chikmagaluru. Pan : Aapas 3058 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Mahesh R. Uppin, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri. Mahesh R. Uppin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

68,097/- in Chikmagalur District Page 2 of 8 Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Therefore, notice under section 148 of the Act, was issue on 24.03.2022. In response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, assessee filed its return of income on 25.04.2022 declaring Nil income. Assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B

GOBINDRAM CHANDRAMANI VIVEK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 1(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in the manner indicated in this order

ITA 656/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok A Kulkarni, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

Section 54, which date of purchase of new asset was also a date prior to extended due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(4). The assessee claimed exemption u/s 54 on long term capital gains earned on transfer of original asset in his belated return of income filed with Revenue u/s 139

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1-(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD., BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1441/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

section 68 of the act. As brought out in the facts the amount represents share capital introduced by Sri. Samyak Chandrakanth Veera a nonresident, non-citizen in the appellant company. The submissions of the appellant have been considered. All the documents furnished during the course of hearing by the AR of the appellant and also his oral arguments have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S SNOWSHINE REALTORS PVT.LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1443/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

section 68 of the act. As brought out in the facts the amount represents share capital introduced by Sri. Samyak Chandrakanth Veera a nonresident, non-citizen in the appellant company. The submissions of the appellant have been considered. All the documents furnished during the course of hearing by the AR of the appellant and also his oral arguments have

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), BENGALURU vs. M/S KANSUR DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LTD. , BENGALURU

In the result, the revenue appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1442/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2012-13 Acit Central Circle- M/S. Kansur Developers India Pvt. Ltd. 1(4) No.2650, Ground Floor Bengaluru Vs. 37Th B Cross, 28Th Main, 9Th Block Jayanagar Bangalore 560 009 Pan No : Aacck9866F Appellant Respondent C.O. Nos.103&104/Bang/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos.1441 & 1442/Bang/2018) Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel forFor Respondent: Dept

section 68 of the act. As brought out in the facts the amount represents share capital introduced by Sri. Samyak Chandrakanth Veera a nonresident, non-citizen in the appellant company. The submissions of the appellant have been considered. All the documents furnished during the course of hearing by the AR of the appellant and also his oral arguments have

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 604/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 44ASection 80Section 801ASection 80I

68 taxmann.com 298 (Kerala), the Kerala High Court held that a return filed by assessee beyond period stipulated under section 139

ARJUN SHETTY,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TPS, CIRCLE - 1(1), MANGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Arjun Shetty, Vs. Ito, 16-6-393/9 Shubha Krishna Building, Ward – Tps, Highland Falnir, Mangalore - 575002. Circle – 1(1), Pan :Ainps5294H Mangalore. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Pranav G Ambekar, V. Narendra Sharma, Advocates Revenue By : Shri. Nilanjan Dey,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025

For Appellant: S/Shri. Pranav G Ambekar, V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Nilanjan Dey,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 10Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

68 of the Act are not applicable and further submitted that admission of agricultural income for claiming rebate is not causing any loss and it happened by unintentional mistake in filing ITR but the explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted. Accordingly, agricultural income shown of Rs.81,07,685/- was treated as unexplained cash credit and added into

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

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)

section 68 of the Act which was not verified by the AO earlier. The relevant finding of the tribunal reads as under: 11. Considering the rival submissions, we noted that the assessee is a credit co-operative society dealing with members only. During the demonetisation period, the members of the assessee deposited cash in SBNs in their accounts maintained

BHAVASAR NAMDEV SIMPI SAMAJ SAHAKAR SANGH LTD,DANDELI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HUBLI

In the result, we partly allow the appeal of the assessee

ITA 698/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Subramanya Gaonkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 2Section 68Section 80A(5)Section 80P(2)

68,438/- and ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee was not required to file return of income because of its Page 6 of 8 income below the threshold limit of tax and assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2). We reject this arguments of the ld. AR since the deduction can be claimed under

GOPAL S. PANDITH vs. DCIT,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1186/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)

Section 139Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 234Section 548

139 of the Act and not to the proceedings initiated u/s 153A of the Act, since the learned Assessing Authority has considered the income returned in the original return. 6. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the adoption of income under head "POOJA" Rs.20,00,000/- as against Rs.3,85,376/- admitted by appellant, rejecting

VEERENDRA KUMAR PATIL,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1658/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts24 necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: 25[Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation

SHREE JAGADGURU MOUNESHWAR PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT KERUR,BAGALKOT, KARNATAKA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, BAGALKOT

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

ITA 1119/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 115BSection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 68Section 80A(5)Section 80P

section 68 is not applicable in the present facts of the case and the AO without discussing in detail has made addition u/s. 68 which is not proper. Therefore the addition is deleted." 7. The details submitted by the assessee was not doubted by the AO. Since in this case the ld. DR submitted that this requires verification

SRITHERUMALLESHWARA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , CHITRADURGA

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

ITA 187/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

section 68 is not applicable in the present facts of the case and the AO without discussing in detail has made addition u/s. 68 which is not proper. Therefore the addition is deleted.” 7. The details submitted by the assessee was not doubted by the AO. Since in this case the ld. DR submitted that this requires verification

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

section 68 had been duly satisfied on aspect of identity of creditors and genuineness of transactions. Moreover, loans had been granted through banking channels and copy of bank statements also had been provided. vii. The learned AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant had returned majority of the amount received as advance before

BELVE VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED ,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, UDUPI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 817/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh R Uppin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 56Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, the pre-condition for claiming the deduction under section 80P of the IT Act has now been made more stringent by reducing the time available to an assessee for making the claim. 16.1 It is pertinent to deal with the case law relied on by the assessee through the learned

BELVE VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, UDUPI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 818/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh R Uppin, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 56Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

139(1) of the IT Act. In other words, the pre-condition for claiming the deduction under section 80P of the IT Act has now been made more stringent by reducing the time available to an assessee for making the claim. 16.1 It is pertinent to deal with the case law relied on by the assessee through the learned

SMT. ARUNA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 537/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sukruth N. Segu, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for department

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 144CSection 44ASection 68

139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, notice u/s 142(1)(i) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 14.3.2018. The same was duly served on the assessee. However, the assessee failed to file return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on or before 31.3.2018 inspite of having cash deposit into bank during the relevant financial year

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

ITA 1618/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts24 necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: 25[Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation