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.

144 results for “section 68”+ Section 129(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi678Mumbai512Karnataka484Bangalore312Ahmedabad205Jaipur172Chennai144Kolkata133Pune99Hyderabad85Indore82Chandigarh78Cochin62Raipur54Calcutta52Surat46Nagpur41Telangana39Visakhapatnam30Lucknow25Guwahati21Rajkot20Cuttack16Jodhpur16SC14Varanasi10Patna9Jabalpur8Amritsar7Allahabad6Agra5Rajasthan5Panaji4Orissa3Ranchi2Andhra Pradesh1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)73Addition to Income62Section 26359Section 153A50Section 13236Disallowance36Section 143(2)17Section 14717Section 142(1)16Section 250

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MADURAI, MADURAI vs. TRANSWORLD GARNET INDIA PVT LTD.,, CHENNAI

ITA 1877/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 40A(3)

68 SOT 217 (Mumbai – Trib). In the said decision, the Tribunal categorically held that no disallowance u/s.40A(3) of the Act can be sustained where the AO fails to bring on record any material to demonstrate or quantify that cash expenditure in excess of the prescribed monetary limit of Rs.20,000/- had actually been incurred. The relevant observations

Showing 1–20 of 144 · Page 1 of 8

...
14
Deduction13
Depreciation12

KALYANASUNDARAM SURESH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, CHENNAI

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

ITA 297/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.297/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kalyanasundaram Suresh, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. 12-A, New No. 24, Income Tax, Swarnamangalam East Road, West Non Corporate Circle 2, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai 600 035. [Pan: Aobps4696F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate & Shri Varun Ranganathan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate Drew Our Attention To The Additional Grounds Of Appeal Filed On 10.12.2023 & Submits That The Said 3 Grounds Of Appeal May Be Taken Up First The Ld. Dr Shri R.V.

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi Kannan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 5

129 of the Act dated 07.10.2015 is also issued to the assessee, which was received on 12.10.2015. The assessee appeared before the assessment proceedings by filing relevant evidence, which is evident from para 2 of the assessment order. On perusal of the impugned order at page 2, we note that the ld. CIT(A) reproduced grounds of appeal, wherein

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

3 -: clearly mandated, deduction of any income to which any of the provisions of Sec.10 applied, if such amount was credited to the Profit & Loss A/c. According to the Ld.DR, loss incurred by a firm was to be carried forward in the hands of such firm. As per Ld.DR, when share of profits from firms were to be reduced, loss

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1015/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

129( Delhi HC) and also decision of Hon’ble Patna-tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Narendra Mohan Bajri . The AO observed that there has to be reasons to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment but sufficiency of the reasons to believe that income of the assessee has escaped cannot be investigated by the ITA No.307/Chny/2010

SHRI K.SRIKANTH,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 307/CHNY/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

129( Delhi HC) and also decision of Hon’ble Patna-tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Narendra Mohan Bajri . The AO observed that there has to be reasons to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment but sufficiency of the reasons to believe that income of the assessee has escaped cannot be investigated by the ITA No.307/Chny/2010

ACIT,, CHENNAI vs. SRI. K.SRIKANTH,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1324/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

129( Delhi HC) and also decision of Hon’ble Patna-tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Narendra Mohan Bajri . The AO observed that there has to be reasons to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment but sufficiency of the reasons to believe that income of the assessee has escaped cannot be investigated by the ITA No.307/Chny/2010

SRI K.SRIKANTH,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the four appeals adjudicated by us in this order are partly allowed

ITA 1016/CHNY/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2020AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. M.Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

129( Delhi HC) and also decision of Hon’ble Patna-tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Narendra Mohan Bajri . The AO observed that there has to be reasons to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment but sufficiency of the reasons to believe that income of the assessee has escaped cannot be investigated by the ITA No.307/Chny/2010

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 663/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

129 lTD 167 (Mum). After considering all of them, the ld CIT (A) directed the A O to cancel the penalty levied on the interest income and on the disallowance made u/s 14A. Therefore, we do not find merit in the submissions of the Revenue and hence dismiss the Revenue’s appeal. ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1421/CHNY/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

129 lTD 167 (Mum). After considering all of them, the ld CIT (A) directed the A O to cancel the penalty levied on the interest income and on the disallowance made u/s 14A. Therefore, we do not find merit in the submissions of the Revenue and hence dismiss the Revenue’s appeal. ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SIVA VENTURES LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1075/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

129 lTD 167 (Mum). After considering all of them, the ld CIT (A) directed the A O to cancel the penalty levied on the interest income and on the disallowance made u/s 14A. Therefore, we do not find merit in the submissions of the Revenue and hence dismiss the Revenue’s appeal. ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016

SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals in ITA No 1392/2016 for the

ITA 1973/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Chennai21 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 250(6)

129 lTD 167 (Mum). After considering all of them, the ld CIT (A) directed the A O to cancel the penalty levied on the interest income and on the disallowance made u/s 14A. Therefore, we do not find merit in the submissions of the Revenue and hence dismiss the Revenue’s appeal. ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016

AADARSH SURANA, CHENNAI,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47Section 68

section 47(xiv) have been fulfilled by the assessee. The Ld.AR has contended that the same is not affected by the provisions of section 49(1)(iii)(e) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the issue is that of interpretation of the proviso to section 47(xiv) of the Act. The revenue has filed

SMT, RAMU ANNAMALAI UMAIYAL RADHAI,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 922/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 922/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 Smt. Ramu Annamalai Umaiyal Radhai, The Principal Commissioner Of Flat No. Iii, 3Rd Floor, Poojapura Vs. Income Tax- Chennai I, Apartments, St. Mary’S Road, Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai 600 028. [Pan:Aakpu6790M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V.P. Kuriachan, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai - I, Chennai, Dated 20.05.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Kuriachan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

129 of the Act dated 24.08.2017. In response to the above notices, the AR of the assessee appeared and furnished all the details and the Assessing Officer, after examining the details furnished by the assessee, the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 15.12.2017 was completed by accepting the income returned by the assessee. 3. Subsequently, after

NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1449/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri. N. Muralikumaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun
Section 132Section 153A

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), CHENNAI vs. SHIV SAHAI & SONS (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

ITA 1988/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. N. Muralikumaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun
Section 132Section 153A

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL, CHENNAI

ITA 1485/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri. N. Muralikumaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun
Section 132Section 153A

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

SAHAI & SONS (I) LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1447/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. N. Muralikumaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun
Section 132Section 153A

Section 68 of the Act, from sales accounted by the assessee. As mentioned by us at para 53 and 54 above, it is an undisputed position that credits in bullion margin money account were generally transferred to sales account. Addition of credit in bullion margin money account has been sustained by us, only to the extent not transferred/accounted

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. UPDATER SERVICES LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1616/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

68 [erstwhile] Section 77A of the Act. Further, it is humbly submitted that buy back under Section 77A of the Companies Act, 1956 was an alternative method provided to the Company as against Section 391-394 of the Companies Act. • The above position has been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

M/S. UPDATER SERVICES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by both the assessee and the Revenue, as well as the grounds raised in the cross-objections filed by the assessee, are treated as allowed for statistical...

ITA 1339/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1339 /Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Updater Services Limited (Formerly Dcit, Known As Updater Services Private Vs. Central Circle -2(3), Limited), No.2/302-A, Uds Salai, Chennai. Off Old Mahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai – 600 097. [Pan:Aaacu-6845-J] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Prasanna, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115QSection 250Section 263Section 391Section 77A

68 [erstwhile] Section 77A of the Act. Further, it is humbly submitted that buy back under Section 77A of the Companies Act, 1956 was an alternative method provided to the Company as against Section 391-394 of the Companies Act. • The above position has been upheld by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case

SELLAMUTHU KABILAN,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CRICLE 3, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE

ITA 3377/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1119, 1120 & 1121/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.209 To 213 & 214/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15 & 2016-17 Mr. P. Palanisamy, 390, P.P. Nilayam, 9Th Main I Cross, Hal Ii Stage, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560 038. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan:Adspp 9150 F] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रयथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.219, 220, 221 & 222/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.200, 201 To 208/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2011-12 To 2018-19 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.3388 To 3392/Chny/2024 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2018-19 M/S. P.P. Financers, 24, Radha Avenue, 3Rd Street, Valsaravakkam, Chennai-600 087. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore. [Pan: Aahfp 0288 L] (अपीलाथ/Appellant) (प्रयथ/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.215 To 218 & 223/Chny/2025 िनधारण वष/Assessment Years: 2015-16 To 2018-19 & 2014-15 Mr. P. Kuppuchamy, No.80/7, 17Th Cross, 16Th Main Road, Btm Layout, Ns Palya, Bangaluru-560 076. V. The Acit, Central Circle-3, Coimbatore.

3). It is not known whether these documents belong to PP Financiers, Oddanchatram or PP Enterprises, Oddanchatram. It is unclear as to how the Assessing Officer has arrived at the quantum of addition based on the above documents. 12. Without prejudice to the above, amendment in section 115BBE increasing the rate of tax to 60% is not retrospectively applicable