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.

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 80Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi55Mumbai52Jaipur48Bangalore14Lucknow11Amritsar11Visakhapatnam10Chandigarh10Indore9Ahmedabad8Chennai8Pune8Kolkata6Raipur5Hyderabad5Cuttack4Jodhpur2Nagpur2Cochin1Rajkot1Ranchi1Surat1Allahabad1Agra1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 14815Section 270A10Section 80I7Cash Deposit5Reopening of Assessment5Section 143(3)4Section 139(1)2Section 80A2Deduction2

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. 4. The learned CIT(A)-5 and AO ought to have seen that in the case of the appellant the transaction of purchase and sale of shares are through recognized stock exchange which is fully supported by uncontroverted Documentary

CHITRA RAMANATHAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORP WARD-17(6), CHENNAI

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

ITA 374/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.374/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Chitra Ramanathan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4/139,G2 Cozee Waves Apt., Non Corporate Ward 17(6), 7Th Street Swaminathan Nagar, Chennai. Kottivakkam, Chennai 600 041. [Pan:Aigpr5643A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 01.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Passed Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 270ASection 80C

80C of the Act. On verification of ITR-1 filed by the assessee as well as Form 16A of Aitken Spence Hotel Management Pvt. Ltd., the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had received income of ₹.2,60,000/- from Aitken Spence Hotel Management Pvt. Ltd. and interest income of ₹.12,769/- from HDFC from which

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs. SHANTHI GEARS LIMITED, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3068/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3068/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 80ASection 80I

68,651 is not allowed to the Assessee.” 4. Aggrieved, the Assessee came in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering various submissions, allowed the claim of the Assessee by observing in paragraphs no.5.4 and 5.5, as under: “5.4. Considering both the arguments, it is necessary to analyze the existing statutory

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 570/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

68) (Mumbai Trib). Therefore, it is prayed that addition u/s.68 based on entries in bank pass book cannot be made. 11.17 On the other hand, the ld.D.R relied on the order of ld.CIT(A). 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Section 69 makes it clear that the onus is on the assessee

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 571/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

68) (Mumbai Trib). Therefore, it is prayed that addition u/s.68 based on entries in bank pass book cannot be made. 11.17 On the other hand, the ld.D.R relied on the order of ld.CIT(A). 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Section 69 makes it clear that the onus is on the assessee

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 572/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

68) (Mumbai Trib). Therefore, it is prayed that addition u/s.68 based on entries in bank pass book cannot be made. 11.17 On the other hand, the ld.D.R relied on the order of ld.CIT(A). 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Section 69 makes it clear that the onus is on the assessee

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 569/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

68) (Mumbai Trib). Therefore, it is prayed that addition u/s.68 based on entries in bank pass book cannot be made. 11.17 On the other hand, the ld.D.R relied on the order of ld.CIT(A). 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Section 69 makes it clear that the onus is on the assessee

K.SURESH,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 568/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCIT
Section 148

68) (Mumbai Trib). Therefore, it is prayed that addition u/s.68 based on entries in bank pass book cannot be made. 11.17 On the other hand, the ld.D.R relied on the order of ld.CIT(A). 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Section 69 makes it clear that the onus is on the assessee