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.

55 results for “section 68”+ Undisclosed Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,155 Mumbai2,338 Jaipur872 Kolkata742 Chennai692 Bangalore552 Ahmedabad466 Hyderabad381 Chandigarh301 Indore286 Pune264 Surat247 Cochin181 Rajkot149 Raipur142 Nagpur131 Visakhapatnam114 Guwahati104 Amritsar81 Jodhpur68 Cuttack63 Lucknow62 Agra58 Allahabad57 Calcutta55 Patna51 Ranchi40 Dehradun25 Karnataka25 Telangana23 Jabalpur15 Varanasi11 SC11 Orissa3 Punjab & Haryana2 Gauhati2 Panaji2 Andhra Pradesh1 Kerala1 Rajasthan1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 6832 Section 260A19 Section 143(3)16 Addition to Income16 Section 26315 Section 1011 Long Term Capital Gains10 Undisclosed Income10 Section 10(38)9 Exemption

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 55 · Page 1 of 3

9

Condonation of Delay8

Section 142(1)7

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 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)(c) is being initiated separately. Aggrieved by such order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commission of Income

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

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving due weightage to the unjustified receipt of high premium from seemingly unprospectively entities and ignoring the ration laid down in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central ) – I Kolkata Vs. NRA Iron and Steel (P) ITAT NO. 4 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 3 of 22 Ltd.reported

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5,KOLKATA vs. AMIT KUMAR JAIN

ITAT/113/2022HC Calcutta26 Sept 2022

Bench: :

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68Section 69C

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and suspicious transanction in shares cannot be exempted under Section 10(38) of the Act? ii) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law by deleting the addition of undisclosed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9, KOLKATA vs. SHRI AJAY KUMAR SHAW

ITAT/53/2020HC Calcutta23 Feb 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and suspicious transaction in shares cannot be exempted under Section 10(38) of the Act? B. Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in deleting the addition of undisclosed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. M/S SREELEATHERS

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/18/2022HC Calcutta14 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 133(6)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

Section 68 of the Act. After the Assessing Officer puts the assessee on notice and the assessee submits the ITAT 18 OF 2022 Page 10 of 14 explanation with regard to the cash credit, the Assessing Officer should consider the same objectively before he takes a decision to accept or reject it. In Srilekha Banerjee & Ors. Versus

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 Chemicals

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 Chemicals

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

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 Chemicals

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

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 Chemicals

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

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 Chemicals

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 Chemicals

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 Chemicals

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 Chemicals

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 Chemicals

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5,KOLKATA vs. SWATI BAJAJ

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/6/2022HC 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 Chemicals

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 Chemicals

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 Chemicals

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 Chemicals

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 Chemicals