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.

1,359 results for “section 68”+ Section 34clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,559Mumbai3,879Bangalore1,359Chennai1,021Ahmedabad839Kolkata785Jaipur756Karnataka686Hyderabad650Surat538Indore516Pune462Chandigarh371Cochin277Raipur261Visakhapatnam211Rajkot144Nagpur142Agra135Cuttack121Telangana107Amritsar103Lucknow100Guwahati99Jodhpur87Calcutta71Ranchi70Jabalpur69Allahabad64SC64Panaji60Patna43Varanasi26Dehradun26Rajasthan14Orissa9Kerala5A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Uttarakhand3Gauhati1Tripura1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income72Section 143(3)55Section 153C49Section 153A47Section 13233Section 14A32Section 201(1)27Disallowance26Section 6824Section 10

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 1457/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023
Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

section 68 of the Act, @ 10% of the tax and\nsurcharge which comes to Rs.4,37,34,600.\n34.\nThe

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 1420/BANG/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-2023
Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

Showing 1–20 of 1,359 · Page 1 of 68

...
21
Transfer Pricing20
Comparables/TP20

section 68 of the Act, @ 10% of the tax and\nsurcharge which comes to Rs.4,37,34,600.\n34.\nThe

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 1419/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2025AY 2022-23
Section 270ASection 271ASection 68

section 68 of the Act, @ 10% of the tax and\nsurcharge which comes to Rs.4,37,34,600.\n34.\nThe

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 147

section 68 of the Act by A.O. 5.1 He submitted that incidentally in one of the group companies M/s.Jaico Realtors (P) Ltd there was an investment of 'Rs.4,06,98,779/- ($ 9,99,970) for the A.Y.2008-09 and similar issue was considered by Tribunal in ITA No.1444/Bang/2018 dated 8.5.2019 and deleted addition made by AO u/s 68

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 147

section 68 of the Act by A.O. 5.1 He submitted that incidentally in one of the group companies M/s.Jaico Realtors (P) Ltd there was an investment of 'Rs.4,06,98,779/- ($ 9,99,970) for the A.Y.2008-09 and similar issue was considered by Tribunal in ITA No.1444/Bang/2018 dated 8.5.2019 and deleted addition made by AO u/s 68

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 147

section 68 of the Act by A.O. 5.1 He submitted that incidentally in one of the group companies M/s.Jaico Realtors (P) Ltd there was an investment of 'Rs.4,06,98,779/- ($ 9,99,970) for the A.Y.2008-09 and similar issue was considered by Tribunal in ITA No.1444/Bang/2018 dated 8.5.2019 and deleted addition made by AO u/s 68

BHUWALKA SALES CORPORATION,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1436/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Apr 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. No.1436/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/S. Bhuwalka Sales Corporation, No.5, Walker Lane, Bhuwalka Landmark, Langford Road, Richmond Town, Bangalore-560 025 …. Appellant. Pan Aaifb 0063G Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri K. Seshadri, C.A. Respondent By : Shri P. Dhivahar, Jcit (D.R). Date Of Hearing : 2.2.2015. Date Of Pronouncement : 1.4.2015. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P. Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Bangalore Dt.12.8.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Facts Of The Case, Briefly, Are As Under :- 2.1 The Assessee, In The Business Of Trading In Rolled Products, Filed The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2009-10 On 26.9.2009 Declaring Income Of Rs.49,25,026. The Return Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short 'The Act') & The Case Was Taken Up For Scrutiny. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Vide

For Appellant: Shri K. Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

34) of the Act since it was not subjected to tax as per the provisions of section 115- O of the Act. 3.4.2 On appeal, before the learned CIT(A), the assessee came up with additional evidence and a new claim that the cheque of Rs.1.25 Crores received from M/s. Deccan Alloys Pvt. Ltd. dt.27.12.2008 was not encashed

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)

34,749/- under section 80P of the Act was disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 7. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 8. The learned CIT(A) after considering the facts in totality held that assessee is eligible for deduction under section 80P of the Act. However

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. g) The appellant submits that his mother Smt. Shanthasheela Bhaskar Shetty who is also one of the partners of M/s Classic Plantations also made the same mistake in her return of income filed by mentioning the profit from the firm as agricultural income also. Accordingly, the additional income tax has been paid

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

Section 68 - Cash credits: "Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income

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

34 ITR 807 (SC), it is the onus of the assessee to explain the cash received by him and if there is no explanation or acceptable evidence to prove the nature and source of the receipt, the amount may be added as the assessee’s income on general principles and it is not necessary to invoke s. 68

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

68 of the Act. This view was held in the case of the CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) 3 SC 410, 433, 434 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as- "Collection of sheet fastened or bound together so as to form material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as books." 12.2.1 The Hon'ble Delhi High

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

34[Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.] 15. As per the above section the notice u/s 148 was issued within parameter

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

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

ITA 1657/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 1Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

34,25,000 3,53,73,930 19,29,48,500 25,90,09,400\n15,64,02,965\n68,45,21,295\nWe have also gone through the statements recorded during the course of\nsearch under section 132(4) of the Act of question and answerNo.22 which is as\nunder :\n22. You\nare hereby given one more opportunity

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2316/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

section 131 of the act on 3/2/2018 and 6/2/2080. He further relied upon the decision of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in case of DCIT versus Sunil Kumar Sharma 469 ITR 197 (Karnataka) [TS-5158-HC- ITA Nos.2315 to 2320 & 2363/Bang/2024 Page 31 of 48 2024(Karnataka)-O] and decision of the coordinate bench in case of ITO versus

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2317/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

section 131 of the act on 3/2/2018 and 6/2/2080. He further relied upon the decision of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in case of DCIT versus Sunil Kumar Sharma 469 ITR 197 (Karnataka) [TS-5158-HC- ITA Nos.2315 to 2320 & 2363/Bang/2024 Page 31 of 48 2024(Karnataka)-O] and decision of the coordinate bench in case of ITO versus

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2320/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

section 131 of the act on 3/2/2018 and 6/2/2080. He further relied upon the decision of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in case of DCIT versus Sunil Kumar Sharma 469 ITR 197 (Karnataka) [TS-5158-HC- ITA Nos.2315 to 2320 & 2363/Bang/2024 Page 31 of 48 2024(Karnataka)-O] and decision of the coordinate bench in case of ITO versus

M/S. GLOBAL TECH PARK PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal no 2319/ Bang/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2318/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 40aSection 69

section 131 of the act on 3/2/2018 and 6/2/2080. He further relied upon the decision of the Honourable Karnataka High Court in case of DCIT versus Sunil Kumar Sharma 469 ITR 197 (Karnataka) [TS-5158-HC- ITA Nos.2315 to 2320 & 2363/Bang/2024 Page 31 of 48 2024(Karnataka)-O] and decision of the coordinate bench in case of ITO versus

M/S. KHODAY INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Khoday India Ltd., The Income-Tax 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. Pan: Aaack6734C Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/12/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-11, Bengaluru In Ita No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/Tr.10036/2018-19 (Din: Itba /Apl /M/ 250 /2021-22/ 1037634908(1) Dated:09.12.2021 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated:14.02.2018. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Entire

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CA
Section 115BSection 154Section 68Section 71

68,26,316/- towards sales promotion expenditure. The Ld.AO, following the decision of this Tribunal, restricted the disallowance to 25% of the said expenditure, and added back ₹ 17,606,579/- as disallowed under section 37 of the Act. 2.6 The Ld.AO also made disallowance of expenditure under section 14A, read with rule 8D (2) (i) to (iii) amounting

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed in above\nterms

ITA 1656/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2015-16
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

34,25,000\n3,53,73,930\n19,29,48,500\n25,90,09,400\n15,64,02,965\n68,45,21,295\n\nWe have also gone through the statements recorded during the course of\nsearch under section 132(4) of the Act of question and answerNo.22 which is as\nunder :\n\n22. You are hereby given