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.

101 results for “section 68”+ Section 234B(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,171Mumbai851Bangalore563Ahmedabad195Kolkata129Jaipur127Hyderabad118Chennai101Pune73Indore46Chandigarh43Nagpur43Allahabad34Surat34Agra31Karnataka31Rajkot29Ranchi25Lucknow20Jodhpur19Amritsar15Cochin14Visakhapatnam14Dehradun13Cuttack7Guwahati7Raipur6SC5Patna3Jabalpur2Telangana2Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income75Section 143(3)67Section 14A51Section 234A50Section 13246Section 153A46Section 153C45Section 6840Disallowance39Natural Justice

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2125/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

68 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 07-08 0 0 0 45 30 15 45 30 15 08-09 15 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Repea t A.Y 02-03 to 08-09 59 43 86 48 38 173 98 75 Total

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Showing 1–20 of 101 · Page 1 of 6

25
Section 143(1)20
Undisclosed Income18

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2219/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

68 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 07-08 0 0 0 45 30 15 45 30 15 08-09 15 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Repea t A.Y 02-03 to 08-09 59 43 86 48 38 173 98 75 Total

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2220/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

68 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 07-08 0 0 0 45 30 15 45 30 15 08-09 15 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Repea t A.Y 02-03 to 08-09 59 43 86 48 38 173 98 75 Total

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2126/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. A. Mahesh, C.A
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 132Section 153A

68 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 0 07-08 0 0 0 45 30 15 45 30 15 08-09 15 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Repea t A.Y 02-03 to 08-09 59 43 86 48 38 173 98 75 Total

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2571/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

68,255/- by computing the income as follows: 88. Thereafter, both the individuals had filed a rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act before the AO on 10.01.2019 in seeking rectification of the re- assessment order dated 21.12.2018 / 20.12.2018 for the following reasons: In the case of Smt. Jothi Narayanan: “With reference to the above referred Assessment Order received

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2574/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

68,255/- by computing the income as follows: 88. Thereafter, both the individuals had filed a rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act before the AO on 10.01.2019 in seeking rectification of the re- assessment order dated 21.12.2018 / 20.12.2018 for the following reasons: In the case of Smt. Jothi Narayanan: “With reference to the above referred Assessment Order received

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2576/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

68,255/- by computing the income as follows: 88. Thereafter, both the individuals had filed a rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act before the AO on 10.01.2019 in seeking rectification of the re- assessment order dated 21.12.2018 / 20.12.2018 for the following reasons: In the case of Smt. Jothi Narayanan: “With reference to the above referred Assessment Order received

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2575/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

68,255/- by computing the income as follows: 88. Thereafter, both the individuals had filed a rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act before the AO on 10.01.2019 in seeking rectification of the re- assessment order dated 21.12.2018 / 20.12.2018 for the following reasons: In the case of Smt. Jothi Narayanan: “With reference to the above referred Assessment Order received

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2573/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

68,255/- by computing the income as follows: 88. Thereafter, both the individuals had filed a rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act before the AO on 10.01.2019 in seeking rectification of the re- assessment order dated 21.12.2018 / 20.12.2018 for the following reasons: In the case of Smt. Jothi Narayanan: “With reference to the above referred Assessment Order received

SHRI V. NATARAJAN (INDIVIDUAL),RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1801/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

68 for tuition fee, marriage gifts, loans from relatives, and disallowance of deduction u/s 54F automatically stand deleted. Having held so, we refrain from going into the merits of individual additions. Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C being consequential, and initiation of penalty u/s 271(1

VARADAPPAN NATARAJAN,RASIPURAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, SALEM

In the result, both the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 1535/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1535 & 1801/Chny/2024 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2015-16 V. Varadappan Natarajan/ The Acit, V. Natarajan (Individual), Central Circle, No.64-C, Rotary Nagar, Salem. Rasipuram Tamil Nadu-637 408. [Pan: Acgpn1477Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Mr.T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, Fca (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025

For Appellant: Mr.T.S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68

68 for tuition fee, marriage gifts, loans from relatives, and disallowance of deduction u/s 54F automatically stand deleted. Having held so, we refrain from going into the merits of individual additions. Levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C being consequential, and initiation of penalty u/s 271(1

T vs. MOTOR COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAIVS.ACIT, CHENNAI

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

ITA 672/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

68,031 Amount spent in excess as service provider Amount spent in excess as service provider 12,85,95,729 Mark-up @ 6.12% 78,70,058 The amount by which the assessee company should have been The amount by which the assessee company should have been 13,64,65,787 reimbursed by A.E, and for which the reimbursed

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. The returns of income filed by the assessees on 23-9-2011 cannot

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. The returns of income filed by the assessees on 23-9-2011 cannot

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MUSTAQ AHMED, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

ITA 1677/CHNY/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri A.B. Koli, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)

68,000/- as exempted on the basis of Form 16A. The details of the exemption claimed were available in Form 16A itself. In fact, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed conveyance allowance of `9,600/- and uniform allowance of `42,000/-. The assessee has also claimed travelling allowance of `1,16,700/- as exempted. Considering the fact that

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MUSTAQ AHMED, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

ITA 1678/CHNY/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri A.B. Koli, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)

68,000/- as exempted on the basis of Form 16A. The details of the exemption claimed were available in Form 16A itself. In fact, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed conveyance allowance of `9,600/- and uniform allowance of `42,000/-. The assessee has also claimed travelling allowance of `1,16,700/- as exempted. Considering the fact that

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MUSTAQ AHMED, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

ITA 1676/CHNY/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri A.B. Koli, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)

68,000/- as exempted on the basis of Form 16A. The details of the exemption claimed were available in Form 16A itself. In fact, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed conveyance allowance of `9,600/- and uniform allowance of `42,000/-. The assessee has also claimed travelling allowance of `1,16,700/- as exempted. Considering the fact that

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MUSTAQ AHMED, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

ITA 1679/CHNY/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri A.B. Koli, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)

68,000/- as exempted on the basis of Form 16A. The details of the exemption claimed were available in Form 16A itself. In fact, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed conveyance allowance of `9,600/- and uniform allowance of `42,000/-. The assessee has also claimed travelling allowance of `1,16,700/- as exempted. Considering the fact that

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ISHTIAQ AHMED, CHENNAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeals in I

ITA 1680/CHNY/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri A.B. Koli, JCIT
Section 2(22)(e)

68,000/- as exempted on the basis of Form 16A. The details of the exemption claimed were available in Form 16A itself. In fact, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessee claimed conveyance allowance of `9,600/- and uniform allowance of `42,000/-. The assessee has also claimed travelling allowance of `1,16,700/- as exempted. Considering the fact that

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)

234B. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds, at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal Each of the above grounds is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds preferred by the Appellant.” ITA Nos.1040/Chny/2014 & 1392, 1393, 1390, 1391, 1973/Chny/2016 ITA Nos.1075/Chny/2014, 663/Chny/2015 (CO No.51/Chny/2014