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.

928 results for “section 68”+ Section 10(38)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,233Mumbai3,611Bangalore1,241Chennai928Ahmedabad872Kolkata782Jaipur753Karnataka673Hyderabad653Pune443Indore422Chandigarh385Surat286Cochin262Raipur217Visakhapatnam159Rajkot147Nagpur130Agra121Lucknow115Cuttack108Telangana103Calcutta81Jabalpur71Guwahati69Amritsar69Allahabad60SC59Ranchi53Jodhpur46Dehradun39Patna35Varanasi22Rajasthan11Orissa9Kerala8Uttarakhand3Gauhati2Panaji2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 4073Addition to Income72Section 19561Disallowance49Section 153A41Section 143(3)40Deduction36Section 534Section 153C31TDS

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2408/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

Showing 1–20 of 928 · Page 1 of 47

...
25
Section 6824
Section 80H24

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2409/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2411/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2407/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

ITO, NCW - I (4),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI KANAKILLIYANALLUR NARAYANAN NEHRU,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2825/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

DICT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. GSNR RICE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2410/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI vs. SHRI KANAKKILIANALLUR NARAYANA REDDIYAR MANIVANNAN,, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2406/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2407, 2408, 2409, 2410 & 2411/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Dcit, M/S. Gsnr Rice Industries Corporate Circle – 2(1), V. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (Formerly Known As M/S. Snr Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.,) No.21, C V Raman Raod, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018. Pan: Aamcs 5834P

For Appellant: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri V. Nagaprasad, Advocate
Section 133ASection 44ASection 68

section 68 of the Act, to treat entries in diary and notebook and deleted entries from computer CPU as unexplained cash credit, one has to first understand provisions of section 68 of the Act. The provisions of section 68 deals with the cases where any sum is found credited in books of accounts of the assessee maintained

M/S AADHI ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 308/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 308/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aadhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, No.1-130, Perambur Barracks V. Central Circle-3(1), Road, Pattalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 112. Pan: Aanca 0382P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Neelakantan, Fca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

10. 12. Ld Counsel argued that 2nd proviso to amended section 68 of the Act (1st proviso to pre-amended section 68, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2012) is noted to be applicable to persons who are residents, who are further required to substantiate the 'source of source' of funds. This additional burden cast upon

M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263Section 43(1)

68 of the paper book): - Contribution to State Gross Domestic Product - Enhancing Brand Equity of Chennai viz. consolidate Chennai / Tamil Nadu's position as Detroit of South Asia - Ancillary Development i.e. additional investment by vendors and supporting service providers - Enhancement in Employment Potential from about 4000 to 7600 persons 25. In view of the above benefits, the GOTN agreed

SMT. SUDHA EASHWAR,,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW - 14 (3),, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2342/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2342/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. Smt. Sudha Eashwar, The Income Tax Officer No.23A, P.T.Rajan Salai, Non-Corporate Ward-14(3) K.K.Nagar, Chennai Chennai-600 078. [Pan: Alxps 0601 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms.Sumathi Venkatraman, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Sumathi Venkatraman
Section 143(3)

38) of the 1961 Act. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Poddar is reproduced hereunder:- “9. We have gone through the rationale given by both the parties pertaining to their arguments. In this case, it is an uncontroverted fact that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction

MITHU KUMARI RANKA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(30, CHENNAI

In the result, five appeals vide ITA Nos

ITA 1970/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Ble“C” Bench

Section 10(38)Section 112Section 143(3)Section 234Section 68

68 and not as income exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act as claimed by the appellant

NARENDRA DEVAKINANDAN HARLALKA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1089/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1089/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 68

section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Therefore, by taking note of investigation report received from DIT (Investigation), Kolkata and also after analysis of various details, denied deduction claimed u/s. 10(38) of the Act and made additions towards consideration received for sale of shares as unexplained credit u/s. 68

NEETA BOTHRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 9(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2507/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2507 & 2508/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Mrs. Neeta Bothra, 1/1, General Patters Road, Non-Corporate Ward-9(3) Chennai- 600 002. Chennai-6. Pan: Aaipb 0445J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.Suresh Periasamy,JCITFor Respondent: 14.07.2021
Section 10(38)Section 68

10(38) of the Income Tax Act and consequently failed to follow the dictum laid by the supreme court in the case of TEJUA ROHITKUMAR KAPADIA while confirming the addition made under section 68

NEETA BOTHRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 9(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2508/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2507 & 2508/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Mrs. Neeta Bothra, 1/1, General Patters Road, Non-Corporate Ward-9(3) Chennai- 600 002. Chennai-6. Pan: Aaipb 0445J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.Suresh Periasamy,JCITFor Respondent: 14.07.2021
Section 10(38)Section 68

10(38) of the Income Tax Act and consequently failed to follow the dictum laid by the supreme court in the case of TEJUA ROHITKUMAR KAPADIA while confirming the addition made under section 68

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. FIXIT PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2833/CHNY/2017[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P.George

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr.N.Gopikrishna, JCIT
Section 10Section 115J

68,564 : 2,79,910 -------------- -------------- Assessed Book Profit : 9,66,375 -------------- 7. Share of loss from the two firms were debited by the assessee in its Profit & Loss A/c and the profit shown in the P&L A/c was after these debits. What can be added to the profit as shown in the Profit & Loss A/c and what

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2361/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

10. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ought not to have added Rs.15,78,600/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68. The provisions of section 68 cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13.1 The AO in assessment year 2007-08 added a sum of Rs.6

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2357/CHNY/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

10. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ought not to have added Rs.15,78,600/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68. The provisions of section 68 cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13.1 The AO in assessment year 2007-08 added a sum of Rs.6

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2359/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

10. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ought not to have added Rs.15,78,600/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68. The provisions of section 68 cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13.1 The AO in assessment year 2007-08 added a sum of Rs.6

SMT. SHARMILA S. JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 435/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

10. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ought not to have added Rs.15,78,600/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68. The provisions of section 68 cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13.1 The AO in assessment year 2007-08 added a sum of Rs.6

SHANTHILAL D JAIN,,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (1),, CHENNAI

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 2358/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

10. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer ought not to have added Rs.15,78,600/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68. The provisions of section 68 cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13.1 The AO in assessment year 2007-08 added a sum of Rs.6