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.

122 results for “section 68”+ Section 245clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi733Mumbai552Karnataka440Bangalore262Kolkata125Chennai122Ahmedabad106Jaipur103Indore90Chandigarh53Pune49Raipur41Cuttack39Ranchi35Hyderabad34Surat33Lucknow31Nagpur26Cochin25Rajkot23Guwahati21Visakhapatnam17Calcutta16SC14Agra8Jodhpur5Rajasthan4Telangana4Jabalpur3Amritsar2Allahabad1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Andhra Pradesh1Uttarakhand1Orissa1

Key Topics

Addition to Income64Section 143(3)45Disallowance45Section 4039Section 153A32Section 14831Section 19526Section 526Deduction26TDS

KARTHICK NATARAJAN,MADURAI vs. DCIT, INTNL TAXN CIRCLE, MADURAI

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

ITA 382/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)(vii)Section 69Section 69A

245 (iii) ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.677/Ind/2019 dated 08.10.2021 8.1 The ld.counsel for the assessee argued that these deposits i.e., cash deposits were made by assessee in November and December, 2016 and the amendment in Section 115BBE of the Act was brought in amending the finance

Showing 1–20 of 122 · Page 1 of 7

21
Depreciation21
Section 6817

GS & SD ASSOCIATES,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-8(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2767/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2767/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Gs & Sd Associates, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 03, Vania Street, Kundrathur, Non Corporate Ward 8(2), Chennai 600 069. Chennai. [Pan:Aaqfg8838C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 6 Grounds Amongst Which The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act , 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 68

section 68 of the Act. He placed on record copy of the assessment order dated 28.02.2023 in the case of Govinda Rajulu Srinivasan in support his contention that the same amount was also assessed in the hands of the partner of the assessee. Further, he argued that the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that when the partner

SMT P.D.ANURADHA,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in I

ITA 102/CHNY/2009[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. G. Baskar & Mr. I. DineshFor Respondent: Mr. M. Swaminathan
Section 143(3)Section 68

245/- which was accepted by the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax at that point of time. The learned Counsel drew our attention to the declaration filed in Form under Rule-3 and the relevant Annexure :: 10 :: I.T.A. Nos.102 & 103/Chny/2009 including the capital account of Smt. P. Girija in the books of Smt. P.D. Anuradha reads as under: “In the books

SMT P.D.ANURADHA,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in I

ITA 103/CHNY/2009[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Aug 2022AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. G. Baskar & Mr. I. DineshFor Respondent: Mr. M. Swaminathan
Section 143(3)Section 68

245/- which was accepted by the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax at that point of time. The learned Counsel drew our attention to the declaration filed in Form under Rule-3 and the relevant Annexure :: 10 :: I.T.A. Nos.102 & 103/Chny/2009 including the capital account of Smt. P. Girija in the books of Smt. P.D. Anuradha reads as under: “In the books

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE2(4), CHENNAI vs. S. ELAMBHARATHI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cos

ITA 221/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

section 68 of the Act. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising grounds forming part of Form 36. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We find similar issue on same identical facts arising out of same search in the case of Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami came up before this Tribunal, which

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI vs. SHRI S. ELEMBHARATHI, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cos filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 220/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.220 & 221/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18 & C.O. Nos. 7 & 8/Chny/2022 [In Ita Nos. 220 & 221/Chny/2022] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri S. Elambharathi, Income Tax, Central Circle -2 (4), Flat No. 5, Ground Floor, 364, Room No. B6, Investigation Building, Kurupam Court, Lloyds Road, No. 46, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai 600 086. Chennai 34. [Pan: Aacpe3945N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: Both The Appeals & The Cross Objections Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively Are Directed Against The Common Order Dated 28.01.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18. 2. Since The Issue Raised In The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 3Section 68

section 68 of the Act. The Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising grounds forming part of Form 36. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. We find similar issue on same identical facts arising out of same search in the case of Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami came up before this Tribunal, 4 I.T.A

ITO CORPORATE WARD 6(1), CHENNAI vs. SCORPIO ENERGY RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Accordingly, in view of the above, Ground No. 4 to 4.5 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1368/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:1368/Chny/2018 िनधा&रणवष&/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

For Respondent: Ms. V. Sreedevi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)Section 68

section 68 of the IT Act. 2.4. The Ld CIT(A) failed to note that “as per contract notes the assessee has traded in “Natural gas” on the commodity exchange & that the net receipt from thesetransaction was Rs. 15,75,445/- which was offered as income. By no stretch of imagination the I.T.A. No.1368/Chny/2018 Assessment Year : 2013 - 2014 above

S.P.MANI AND MOHAN DAIRY,ERODE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, ERODE

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

ITA 1321/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mrs.G.Vardini Karthik, CAFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

245 (Delhi), where in it is held that unpaid liabilities cannot be added as the Assessee's income under Section 41(1) merely because they remained unpaid for a sufficiently long time and that it is required of the revenue authorities to show that the liability to pay the creditors has ceased or has been remitted by the creditors

KRISHNAMOORTHY RAVI,DHARMAPURI vs. ITO, WARD-1,, DHARMAPURI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1700/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1700/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Krishnamoorthy Ravi, Income Tax Officer, No.35J / I Nickenkottai (Vill), Ward-1, Naickenkottai Post, Dharmapuri. Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu-636 702, [Pan: Atapr4528H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A (Virtual) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 68

section 44AE in its case. Page - 2 - of 6 4.0 Brief factual matrix of the case is that no Return of Income for AY-2012-13 was filed by the assessee. Based upon the information regarding cash deposit in assessee’s bank account, proceeding u/s 147 were initiated the assessee did not file any Return of Income in response

SHRO A/ JOHNKUMAR,,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, CC-1(4),, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3028/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3028/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.A. Johnkumar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- No.28, Savari Padayatchi Street, Of Income Tax, Nellithope, Central Circle-1(4), Pondicherry-605 005. Chennai. [Pan: Afnpj 4673 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S. Xavier Felix, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. M.Rajan, CIT
Section 2(14)(iii)Section 69Section 69C

245-11.01.2017popularly known Sahara dairies and Aditya Birla diaries case. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, following the judgment rendered in case of V.C. Shukla (supra), laid down the following principles: - (i) Entries in loose papers/sheets are irrelevant and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act. It is only where the entries

DCIT, CC-1(4),, CHENNAI vs. M/S. JOHNKUMAR TRUST,, PUDUCHERRY

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3092/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3028/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.A. Johnkumar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- No.28, Savari Padayatchi Street, Of Income Tax, Nellithope, Central Circle-1(4), Pondicherry-605 005. Chennai. [Pan: Afnpj 4673 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S. Xavier Felix, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. M.Rajan, CIT
Section 2(14)(iii)Section 69Section 69C

245-11.01.2017popularly known Sahara dairies and Aditya Birla diaries case. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, following the judgment rendered in case of V.C. Shukla (supra), laid down the following principles: - (i) Entries in loose papers/sheets are irrelevant and not admissible under Section 34 of the Evidence Act. It is only where the entries

SUNDARAM FASTENERS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3236/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3236/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. M/S.Sundram Fasteners Ltd., The Dcit, 98-A, 7Th Floor, Corporate Circle-6(2), Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. [Pan: Aaacs 8779 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikaram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT

68,66,245 Total disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D 3,79,47,451 M/s.Sundram Fasteners Ltd. :: 29 :: 11.1 It is noted that the assessee had suo moto disallowed Rs.2,03,990/- The Ld.AR assailing the action of the AO submitted that no disallowance under Rule 8D(ii) can be made, because, the investment made for earning exempt income

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1804/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 2035/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1803/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1802/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1801/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

CITY UNION BANK LIMITED,KUMBAKONAM vs. JCIT, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 2034/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

ACIT, KUMBAKONAM vs. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM

In the result, the appeals filed for the assessment year 2007-08 filed by

ITA 1671/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194JSection 195JSection 40A

68,67,030/-. Subsequently, the income was reduced to Rs. 50,72,31,300/- as per the Tribunal Appellate order in ITA No. 770(M.P. No. 209)/Mds/2011 dated 16.12.2011. The Assessing Officer is having information that the assessee's has made payment towards MICR charges without deduction of Tax(TDS) on payments and violates provisions of section 194J

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -2(1), CHENNAI vs. THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2145/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Srinivasa Rao, CIT
Section 115VSection 14A

Section 43B of the Act to neutralize the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Bharath Earth Movers Ltd vs. CIT, 245 ITR 428. This provision was struck down by the Calcutta High Court in Exide Industries Ltd., vs., Union of India, 292 ITR 470 being contrary and unconstitutional. The Revenue has challenged the order