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.

145 results for “section 68”+ Section 1clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi10,828 Mumbai9,739 Kolkata3,243 Bangalore2,600 Ahmedabad2,247 Chennai2,198 Jaipur1,567 Hyderabad1,425 Pune1,341 Surat963 Chandigarh904 Indore842 Karnataka811 Cochin642 Rajkot494 Raipur458 Visakhapatnam423 Lucknow318 Nagpur297 Amritsar272 Agra255 Cuttack244 Guwahati235 Telangana166 Patna161 Ranchi152 Jodhpur148 Calcutta145 SC132 Jabalpur120 Panaji109 Allahabad104 Dehradun102 Varanasi49 Rajasthan22 Orissa14 Kerala13 Punjab & Haryana7 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5 Uttarakhand4 Gauhati3 Andhra Pradesh2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 Tripura1 A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1 HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1 ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Section 6863 Section 26355 Section 260A38 Addition to Income38 Section 143(3)23 Section 13112 Section 14711 Section 80H10 Section 109 Disallowance

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BST INFRATECH LTD

In the result the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the learned

ITAT/67/2024HC Calcutta23 Apr 2024

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

68 of the Act as undisclosed cash credit. The assessee was informed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9,KOLKATA vs. MANJU OSATWAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and

Showing 1–20 of 145 · Page 1 of 8

...

7

Condonation of Delay7

Limitation/Time-bar6

ITAT/96/2021

HC Calcutta

11 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Appellant: Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Swapna Das, Adv

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 180Section 182Section 260ASection 263

1 of 2021 T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. : We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel for the appellant/revenue 2 and Ms. Swapna Das, duly assisted by Mr. Siddharth Das, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 2. There is a delay of 420 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of the relevant dates, we find that the appellant/revenue would be entitled

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. PREMIER TIE UP PVT LTD

ITAT/81/2022HC Calcutta26 Sept 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE SUPRATIM BHATTACHARYA

For Respondent: Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Adv

Section 34Section 36(1)Section 36(2)

1 in relation to working out the contract, 27 leading to the opposite party no. 2 assuming jurisdiction as the arbitrator. According to the petitioner, it was only after the proceedings commenced that the opposite party no. 2 by his biased conduct demonstrated that he was incapable of resolving the disputes between the parties in a fair, just and proper

M/S. SHEO SHAKTI COKE INDUSTRIES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 37, KOLKATA

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed

ITAT/1/2022HC Calcutta08 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. As held by us, the form is not only integral part of the rule but embodied in the rule itself as it is mandatory condition imposed on the selling dealer in obtaining a certificate from the purchasing dealer. This condition could be imposed only because Rule 33A (1

BALGOPAL MERCHANTS PVT LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/232/2023HC Calcutta13 May 2024

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

1) were issued and served on the assessee. In response to the said notice, the authorised representative of the assessee appeared and filed details as called for. The assessing officer noted that the business of the assessee is only investment and during the previous year, the assessee had received huge share application money along with the premium. Summons under Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. MINTO PARK ESTATES PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned

ITAT/4/2025HC Calcutta01 Aug 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

1,10,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,BURDWAN vs. BIJAYA TAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/122/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI vs. PRAKASHO DEVI SARIA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/138/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MUKESH SARAOGI (HUF)

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/76/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. GITESH TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/154/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9, KOLKATA vs. PUSPA DEVI TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/150/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-SILIGURI vs. SHEKHAR AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/139/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

PR CIT 9, KOLKATA vs. MANISHA TIKMANI

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/155/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18, KOLKATA vs. SRI VIKASH GOEL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/85/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, KOLKATA vs. MUKTA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/44/2020HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR PERIWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/136/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAKESH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/27/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. AAYUSH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/88/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. POOJA JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/87/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA vs. KRISHNA KUMAR PARSURAMKA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/130/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 68 of the Act does not arise. ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 20 of 150 6. The assessing officer after taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced by the assessee noted that from the contract notes, it was seen that the assessee purchased 50,000 shares in Surabhi