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.

903 results for “section 68”+ Section 74clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,946Mumbai2,366Bangalore903Chennai637Karnataka631Ahmedabad620Kolkata484Jaipur463Hyderabad399Indore305Surat294Pune257Chandigarh225Cochin211Visakhapatnam117Rajkot100Raipur94Telangana88Cuttack79Calcutta66Jabalpur60Nagpur57Lucknow53Allahabad49Guwahati47SC44Panaji36Dehradun35Amritsar30Agra29Ranchi28Jodhpur20Varanasi7Rajasthan7Orissa7Patna6Andhra Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income68Section 143(3)66Section 153C48Disallowance42Section 133A34Section 115J31Section 10A29Section 14828Section 201(1)27

MR. MOHAMMED HANIF MOHAMMED YUSUF DHARWADKAR,HUBLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HUBLI

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

ITA 135/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Veera Raghavan, D.R
Section 147Section 234ASection 68

section 234A and 234B and 234C of the Act. 8. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed. Total tax effect Rs.2,08,12,152/- 2. The registry has noted that there was a delay of 74 in filing the appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 903 · Page 1 of 46

...
Section 14A26
Deduction22
TDS18

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 684/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 68

74,930/- was made between November 1 and November 7, 2016, • ₹6,72,68,168/- was made on a single day, November 8, 2016, and • The remaining cash sales for the month of November 2016 amounted to ₹38 lakh. 5. Accordingly, the AO raised a question regarding the genuineness of the cash sales made during November 2016, through a notice

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

74,25,026 in view of an addition of Rs.1,25,00,000 under Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment for Assessment Year 2009-10 dt.26.12.2011, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) – I, Bangalore. The learned CIT (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal vide the impugned order dt.12.8.2013

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

74,149/-: AMOUNT IN Rs. PARTICULARS 1. Opening Land 10,41,500.00 Unexplained investment in property 9,28,000.00 Unexplained investment in property 25,31,500.00 Unexplained investment in property 20,53,000.00 45,84,500.00 Unexplained investment in property 94,97,820.00 29,43,820.00 Opening construction cost of residence 5,85,000.00 Opening Yatish Acharya-Loans and advances

CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1677/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69ASection 80

sections 72(1), 73(2), 73A(2), 74(1) or (3) and 74A(3) and 80 of the Act were relied on by the Ld.AR and contended that the losses in respect of the previous years could be set off against the current Page 4 of 14 years profits when the assessee had filed their return of income

MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

ITA 705/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shamala D.D, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 2(19)Section 234ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

74,662/- was denied. 4. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued notices on different dates but the assessee did not respond to any of the notices. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the above, the assessee is before

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 173/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 147Section 68

section 68 of the Act, only the credit emerged in assessment year under consideration could be questioned u/s 68 of the Act and not the opening balance. Being so, the ld. A.O has to verify this transaction as to which assessment year it relates and decide accordingly. This ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. Next

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

ITA 1467/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 147Section 68

section 68 of the Act, only the credit emerged in assessment year under consideration could be questioned u/s 68 of the Act and not the opening balance. Being so, the ld. A.O has to verify this transaction as to which assessment year it relates and decide accordingly. This ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. Next

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

ITA 1457/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 147Section 68

section 68 of the Act, only the credit emerged in assessment year under consideration could be questioned u/s 68 of the Act and not the opening balance. Being so, the ld. A.O has to verify this transaction as to which assessment year it relates and decide accordingly. This ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 30. Next

M/S KOOCHIE PLAY SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2828/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Chakravarthy, C. AFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 56(2)Section 68

Section 68 of the Act. D B Corporation is a listed company. I t is submitted that the Appellant has fulfilled the primary onus cast upon him i.e., identity of the person making the payment, creditworthiness and confirmation by the person making such payment. The authorities below failed to make any enquiries based on the information provided

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

74,000/- . Thereafter notice u/s 143(2) was issued & served to the assessee on 28.06.2021 . In this regard, questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act dated 02.11.2021 to furnish the details regarding nature of business carried out during the yea,. the details of parties to whom advance had been given and business purpose of the same details

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

ITA 1617/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

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

74,000/- . Thereafter notice u/s 143(2) was issued & served to the assessee on 28.06.2021 . In this regard, questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act dated 02.11.2021 to furnish the details regarding nature of business carried out during the yea,. the details of parties to whom advance had been given and business purpose of the same details

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

section 68. vii. The product of the assessee caters mainly to farmers in and around Shimogga and hence most of the sales are done through cash and it is the reason for assessee could not file the details of persons to whom sales is made. viii. The sales of the assessee increases post rainy season i.e., September

LEELARAM CHOUDHARY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(5), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1086/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act is ruled out. Therefore, in view of the above judgments, we observe that it is a settled law that opening balance o unsecured loans coming from previous financial years cannot be added u/s. 68 of the Act to th income of the assessee. We further observe that even the PAN numbers as well

M/S. KODAVA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,PONNAMPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

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

ITA 764/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeykodava Education Society Acit (Exemptions), Circle-1 Po Box No. 11, Halligattu Unity Building Annexe Vs. Ponnampet 571216 5Th Floor, Mission Road Pan – Aaaak1322J Bengaluru 560027 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vishal Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi /Cit(A) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/ 2003-24/1061703575(1) Dated 28.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1 The Impugned Order Of The Appellate Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Liable To Set Aside In So Far As The Same Is Incorrect, Irregular, Improper, Unlawful & Oppose To The Law & Facts Of The Case. 2 That The Learned Appellate Commissioner Erred In Not Taking Cognizance Of The Fact That The Appellant Had Committed Certain Errors & Omissions In Filling Up The Return Of Income Which Ought To Have Been Substituted With The Correct Figures To Arrive At The Taxable Income, If Any & As Such The Impugned Order Is Liable To Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

74,68,001 5. Mess receipts 1,15,562 1,15,562 1,22,58,937 6. Interest on bank deposits 28,90,747 28,90,747 28,90,747 7. Miscellaneous income 13,38,875 13,38,875 13,38,875 8. Total Gross Receipts 7,34,38,017 7,34,38,017 8,65,67,261 9. Less

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,SHIVAMOGGA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) -WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 540/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

section 201(1A) of the Act, by Ld.AO, branch wise, qua assessment year, in paper book at page 3-6 as under: Page 5 of 74 ITA No.507 to 566 /Bang/2020 Theerthahalli Branch Payment to Cash Medical Payment to Chinnu Kulkarni Services Benefit u/s 192 Graphics 194C u s 194C Interest Interest Interest

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,THIRTHAHALLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 516/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

section 201(1A) of the Act, by Ld.AO, branch wise, qua assessment year, in paper book at page 3-6 as under: Page 5 of 74 ITA No.507 to 566 /Bang/2020 Theerthahalli Branch Payment to Cash Medical Payment to Chinnu Kulkarni Services Benefit u/s 192 Graphics 194C u s 194C Interest Interest Interest

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 520/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

section 201(1A) of the Act, by Ld.AO, branch wise, qua assessment year, in paper book at page 3-6 as under: Page 5 of 74 ITA No.507 to 566 /Bang/2020 Theerthahalli Branch Payment to Cash Medical Payment to Chinnu Kulkarni Services Benefit u/s 192 Graphics 194C u s 194C Interest Interest Interest

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 524/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

section 201(1A) of the Act, by Ld.AO, branch wise, qua assessment year, in paper book at page 3-6 as under: Page 5 of 74 ITA No.507 to 566 /Bang/2020 Theerthahalli Branch Payment to Cash Medical Payment to Chinnu Kulkarni Services Benefit u/s 192 Graphics 194C u s 194C Interest Interest Interest

M/S. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,DAVANGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for assessment years 2011-12 to 2014-15 on the legal issue and the appeals for assessment years 2015-

ITA 522/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Chytanya KK, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R Premi, JCIT (DR)
Section 10Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

section 201(1A) of the Act, by Ld.AO, branch wise, qua assessment year, in paper book at page 3-6 as under: Page 5 of 74 ITA No.507 to 566 /Bang/2020 Theerthahalli Branch Payment to Cash Medical Payment to Chinnu Kulkarni Services Benefit u/s 192 Graphics 194C u s 194C Interest Interest Interest