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.

239 results for “section 68”+ Section 160clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi850Mumbai605Karnataka469Bangalore239Jaipur179Ahmedabad176Kolkata163Chennai154Hyderabad93Cochin90Indore75Chandigarh64Raipur63Pune60Nagpur39Telangana33Surat33Lucknow24Allahabad24Rajkot24Visakhapatnam23Calcutta19Ranchi16Agra13Cuttack12Amritsar10SC9Jodhpur8Dehradun7Rajasthan6Jabalpur4Orissa3Kerala2Guwahati1Andhra Pradesh1Uttarakhand1Patna1

Key Topics

Addition to Income64Section 201(1)50Section 14845Section 133A42Section 153A41Section 20138Section 19233Section 1033Section 143(3)31Disallowance

C.K. RAMAKRISHNA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 550/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Yadav, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68Section 69

160 of the paper book. We are however unable to accept the argument. Though s. 68 of the Act may not be strictly applicable since the assessee was not maintaining any books of account and the bank statement cannot be considered as the assessee’s books of account, on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court

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

Showing 1–20 of 239 · Page 1 of 12

...
29
Survey u/s 133A25
TDS22

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

160/- (-) Rs. Cash balance as on 08/11/2016 of Rs. 6,32,731/-) is brought to tax under the head Income from other sources as unexplained cash u/s. 68 and tax rates applicable as per provisions of section

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

160/- (-) Rs. Cash balance as on 08/11/2016 of Rs. 6,32,731/-) is brought to tax under the head Income from other sources as unexplained cash u/s. 68 and tax rates applicable as per provisions of section

MR. P. NARASIMHA RAO,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 840/BANG/2022[201-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

section 68. The addition could not be made.” Mr. P. Narasimha Rao, Mangaluru Page 25 of 29 21.2 In view of this, we delete the above addition made by the AO. 22. Next ground of the assessee’s appeal is reproduced below: “5. The learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is not justified in law in upholding

MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1737/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, A.R., Standing counsel for Revenue
Section 131Section 68

section 44AD and computed the income declared by the assessee at Rs.3,37,160/- and thereafter made addition towards undisclosed profit u/s. 68

SMT. KEMPANNA SHYLAJA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri L.Maheshkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 54Section 54FSection 68

160 ITD 605 (Mum – Trib.) d. Lokesh Chandrappa v. ITO in ITA No.1254/Bang/2015 dated 09.11.2016 wherein it was held as under – In the light of the above, the appellant submits that provisions of section 68

M/S. KOKKARNE PRABHAKAR,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), HUBBALLI

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

ITA 1239/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kokkarne Prabhakara, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 103, Indira Prasta Apartment, Ward 3(2), Hubballi. Vivekanand Colony, Keshwapur, Hubli-580 023 Pan Acipp 8430H

Section 143(3)Section 44A

section 44AD and computed the income declared by the assessee at Rs.3,37,160/- and thereafter made addition towards undisclosed profit u/s. 68

K R PRADEEP,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 417/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Mar 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Girija G.P, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 250Section 68

Section 68 was not applicable. Our attention was drawn to the confirmation letters placed at pages 159 and 160

ENSURE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1093/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri Atul Madhavan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147

160 (MP) It was held that, according to Section 68, the burden was on the assessee to satisfactorily explain

RAHUL MEKA ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-1(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J – CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 147Section 45Section 54Section 54FSection 68

68 of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Grounds on additions made amounting to Rs.28,53,193/- as Long-Term Capital Gains as per section 45 of the Act: 4.1 The learned assessing officer and the learned DRP, were not justified in making and addition of Rs.28,53,193/- as Long- Term Capital gains

PUTTAPPA T.K ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 547/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. M.R. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

Section 68 was not applicable. Our attention was drawn to the confirmation letters placed at pages 159 and 160

MAHENDRA KUMAR ,BALLARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1 & TPS, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 423/BANG/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shivaprasada Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 44ASection 68Section 69

section 44AD and computed the income declared by the assessee at Rs.3,37,160/- and thereafter made addition towards undisclosed profit u/s. 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, SHIVAMOGGA vs. M/S. MANASA MEDICALS, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan KumarFor Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 148ASection 68

160/- (-) Rs. Cash balance as on 08/11/2016 of Rs. 6,32,731/-) is brought to tax under the head Income from other sources as unexplained cash u/s. 68 and tax rates applicable as per provisions of section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 65/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

Section of BWS Central Office. I do not remember that the amounts were written when I signed (emphasis supplied) Q8. Have you paid the amounts of donation mentioned in the receipts referred above? No. I have not paid (emphasis supplied)" A8. The statement is self-explanatory. It is sufficiently proved that BVVS has introduced cash receipts from unknown sources

SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SAGHA,BAGALKOT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2777/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

Section of BWS Central Office. I do not remember that the amounts were written when I signed (emphasis supplied) Q8. Have you paid the amounts of donation mentioned in the receipts referred above? No. I have not paid (emphasis supplied)" A8. The statement is self-explanatory. It is sufficiently proved that BVVS has introduced cash receipts from unknown sources

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S. SRI. BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA, BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 234/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

Section of BWS Central Office. I do not remember that the amounts were written when I signed (emphasis supplied) Q8. Have you paid the amounts of donation mentioned in the receipts referred above? No. I have not paid (emphasis supplied)" A8. The statement is self-explanatory. It is sufficiently proved that BVVS has introduced cash receipts from unknown sources

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 64/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

Section of BWS Central Office. I do not remember that the amounts were written when I signed (emphasis supplied) Q8. Have you paid the amounts of donation mentioned in the receipts referred above? No. I have not paid (emphasis supplied)" A8. The statement is self-explanatory. It is sufficiently proved that BVVS has introduced cash receipts from unknown sources

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SRI BASAVESHWAR VEERASHAIVA VIDYAVARDHAK SANGHA , BAGALKOTE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 66/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

Section of BWS Central Office. I do not remember that the amounts were written when I signed (emphasis supplied) Q8. Have you paid the amounts of donation mentioned in the receipts referred above? No. I have not paid (emphasis supplied)" A8. The statement is self-explanatory. It is sufficiently proved that BVVS has introduced cash receipts from unknown sources

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI V C CHARANTIMATH , BAGALKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 236/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

Section of BWS Central Office. I do not remember that the amounts were written when I signed (emphasis supplied) Q8. Have you paid the amounts of donation mentioned in the receipts referred above? No. I have not paid (emphasis supplied)" A8. The statement is self-explanatory. It is sufficiently proved that BVVS has introduced cash receipts from unknown sources

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. SRI.V.C.CHARANTIMATH , BAGALKOT

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 235/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 35ASection 80G

Section of BWS Central Office. I do not remember that the amounts were written when I signed (emphasis supplied) Q8. Have you paid the amounts of donation mentioned in the receipts referred above? No. I have not paid (emphasis supplied)" A8. The statement is self-explanatory. It is sufficiently proved that BVVS has introduced cash receipts from unknown sources