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.

74 results for “section 68”+ Section 56(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,638 Mumbai2,858 Bangalore1,090 Chennai821 Ahmedabad737 Karnataka652 Kolkata646 Jaipur611 Hyderabad580 Indore344 Pune340 Chandigarh298 Surat250 Cochin227 Raipur139 Visakhapatnam111 Agra107 Lucknow103 Rajkot97 Cuttack97 Nagpur93 Telangana88 Calcutta74 Jabalpur64 Amritsar63 Jodhpur53 Guwahati50 Allahabad50 SC46 Panaji37 Dehradun28 Patna25 Ranchi23 Varanasi18 Rajasthan9 Kerala8 Orissa7 Uttarakhand3 Andhra Pradesh1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 6821 Section 143(3)14 Addition to Income12 Section 260A9 Section 1477 Section 143(2)6 Section 142(1)4 Section 1314 Section 2634 Unexplained Cash Credit

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

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

ITAT/96/2021HC Calcutta11 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

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4

3

Condonation of Delay3

Bogus/Accommodation Entry2

68 of the Income Tax Act or not? 6. We have heard Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned standing Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Swapna Das and Mr. Siddharth Das, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 7. As an interesting question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, we requested Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel to assist

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)

56. The first objection raised by the Bhaiya group, through their counsel Mr. Ghosh, is that since the alleged incident of the Learned Arbitrator appearing for M/s. SSSMIL occurred during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the Bagri group ought to have filed an application under Section 13 of the Act before the Arbitrator himself. 57. It is also

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 (1978) 114 ITR 689 2 (2013) 350 ITR 407 3 (2022) 446 ITR 56 (Cal) ITAT NO. 232 OF 2023 REPORTABLE Page 11 of 26 supplementary affidavit in page 47 was referred to stating that the details called for were fully furnished. The shareholder’s response was also referred to which is annexed to the supplementary affidavit in page

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASANSOL KOLKATA vs. RAJESH JHUNJHUNWALA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/26/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL -1, KOLKATA vs. SURAJ SAHANA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/41/2020HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5, KOLKATA vs. JEMISH SHAH

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/57/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SILIGURI vs. SRI SATYA NARAYAN SARIA

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/168/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-15, KOLKATA vs. SMT. BABITA AGARWAL

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/64/2020HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

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

1) of the Act had called for details and documents which were furnished by the assessee and after discussing the case and also verifying the fact from M/s. SHCIL by intimation under Section 133(6) of the Act, the assessment was completed and the assessment could not have been set aside by the Commissioner by invoking his powers under