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.

6 results for “section 68”+ Section 140Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai33Karnataka25Hyderabad24Jaipur21Delhi19Amritsar11Pune9Kolkata8Chennai6Ahmedabad3Chandigarh3Cochin2Bangalore2Varanasi2SC1

Key Topics

Section 234A26Section 153A12Section 13210Section 143(1)7Section 119(20)(b)6Section 143(3)4Section 119(20)2Section 140A2Disallowance2Addition to Income

ACIT, NCC-2,, MADURAI vs. GANESAN ANBUSELVAM, THIRUTHANGAL

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3181/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3181/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

68 of the IT (Rs.60,70,000/-) As per the Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs. 60,70,000/- towards unexplained income. During the FY 2017-18, the assessee has deposited a sum of Rs.3,79,22,561/- in the Current account (516901000004267) maintained in Tamil Nadu Gram Bank, Thiruthangal, Sivakasi and also submitted copy

2
Search & Seizure2

GNANASEKARAN,CUDDALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1807/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1807 & 1808/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Gnanasekaran, The Assistant Commissioner 21, Thirowpathi Amman Koil Street , Vs. Of Income Tax, Cuddalore-607 002. Central Circle -1(1) Pan: Acvpg-5138-J Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234A

68 (Chennai) (URO) is not applicable to these cases since the facts are distinguishable. In the case of Dr. V Jayakumar (supra), the assessee had paid taxes much before filing the return, whereas in the present cases the assessees have paid taxes under section 140A

GNANASEKARAN,CUDDALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1808/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1807 & 1808/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years :2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Gnanasekaran, The Assistant Commissioner 21, Thirowpathi Amman Koil Street , Vs. Of Income Tax, Cuddalore-607 002. Central Circle -1(1) Pan: Acvpg-5138-J Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 234A

68 (Chennai) (URO) is not applicable to these cases since the facts are distinguishable. In the case of Dr. V Jayakumar (supra), the assessee had paid taxes much before filing the return, whereas in the present cases the assessees have paid taxes under section 140A

APOLLO PHARMACIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 868/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 867 & 868/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 Apollo Pharmacies Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 19, Bishop Gardens, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 028. Chennai. [Pan: Aapca-5954-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.11.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 119(20)Section 119(20)(b)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

68,830/-. :-2-: ITA. Nos: 867 & 868/Chny/2023 The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by CPC on 14.12.2021 and accepted total income declared by the assessee, with a demand notice of Rs. 5,78,43,140/-, towards interest payable u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Thereafter

APOLLO PHARMACIES LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 867/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Nov 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 867 & 868/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2020-21 Apollo Pharmacies Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 19, Bishop Gardens, V. Income Tax, Raja Annamalaipuram, Corporate Circle -1(1), Chennai – 600 028. Chennai. [Pan: Aapca-5954-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.11.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 119(20)Section 119(20)(b)Section 140ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A

68,830/-. :-2-: ITA. Nos: 867 & 868/Chny/2023 The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by CPC on 14.12.2021 and accepted total income declared by the assessee, with a demand notice of Rs. 5,78,43,140/-, towards interest payable u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. Thereafter

SHRI T.N. RAJAMOHAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the assesse’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2540/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Delhi High Court in the case of Mr. Vijay Gupta decided on 20.03.2016 referred to the decision of the :-7-: Supreme Court reported in 261 ITR 367 and the Apex Court in the said decision has held that if the assessee has by mistake or inadvertently or on account of ignorance