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.

372 results for “section 68”+ Section 10(26)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,147Mumbai4,066Bangalore1,544Chennai1,014Ahmedabad951Jaipur860Kolkata804Hyderabad761Karnataka693Pune551Indore470Surat450Chandigarh433Cochin372Raipur249Visakhapatnam220Rajkot176Agra140Cuttack136Amritsar128Nagpur127Guwahati127Lucknow110Telangana110SC74Ranchi70Jabalpur70Calcutta68Allahabad66Jodhpur48Panaji33Patna31Dehradun22Varanasi15Rajasthan11Orissa9Kerala7A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Uttarakhand3Tripura1Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Section 25069Section 153A42Addition to Income42Section 143(3)39Section 14A30Section 13227Section 201(1)16Cash Deposit15Exemption14Search & Seizure

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 581/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

26,04,909 21,10,30,780 27,36,35,689 Appellant, family members and group concerns 3. Other Credit Entries in Bank accounts 3,77,12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition

Showing 1–20 of 372 · Page 1 of 19

...
14
Section 26313
Section 271C12

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 582/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

26,04,909 21,10,30,780 27,36,35,689 Appellant, family members and group concerns 3. Other Credit Entries in Bank accounts 3,77,12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 583/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

26,04,909 21,10,30,780 27,36,35,689 Appellant, family members and group concerns 3. Other Credit Entries in Bank accounts 3,77,12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 585/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

26,04,909 21,10,30,780 27,36,35,689 Appellant, family members and group concerns 3. Other Credit Entries in Bank accounts 3,77,12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 580/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

26,04,909 21,10,30,780 27,36,35,689 Appellant, family members and group concerns 3. Other Credit Entries in Bank accounts 3,77,12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 584/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

26,04,909 21,10,30,780 27,36,35,689 Appellant, family members and group concerns 3. Other Credit Entries in Bank accounts 3,77,12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 586/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

26,04,909 21,10,30,780 27,36,35,689 Appellant, family members and group concerns 3. Other Credit Entries in Bank accounts 3,77,12,080 18,78,21,812 22,55,33,892 of Appellant and his family members 4. Alleged on-money paid in cash or ---- 16,10,00,000 16,10,00,000 acquisition

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 312/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

26,989 47,94,816 34,79,017 2009-10 P.T.Varghese 39,78,230 11,50,958 51,29,188 45,00,000 33,49,047 1,01,51,363 4. The CIT(A) has overlooked that going by CIT(A)’s own logic, unexplained credit total Rs.1,01,51,363 in A.Y. 2009-10. This ought to have been

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, TRICHUR

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

ITA 313/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

26,989 47,94,816 34,79,017 2009-10 P.T.Varghese 39,78,230 11,50,958 51,29,188 45,00,000 33,49,047 1,01,51,363 4. The CIT(A) has overlooked that going by CIT(A)’s own logic, unexplained credit total Rs.1,01,51,363 in A.Y. 2009-10. This ought to have been

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, TRICHUR

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

ITA 314/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

26,989 47,94,816 34,79,017 2009-10 P.T.Varghese 39,78,230 11,50,958 51,29,188 45,00,000 33,49,047 1,01,51,363 4. The CIT(A) has overlooked that going by CIT(A)’s own logic, unexplained credit total Rs.1,01,51,363 in A.Y. 2009-10. This ought to have been

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI, KOCHI vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, TRICHUR

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

ITA 315/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

26,989 47,94,816 34,79,017 2009-10 P.T.Varghese 39,78,230 11,50,958 51,29,188 45,00,000 33,49,047 1,01,51,363 4. The CIT(A) has overlooked that going by CIT(A)’s own logic, unexplained credit total Rs.1,01,51,363 in A.Y. 2009-10. This ought to have been

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, TRICHUR

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

ITA 316/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

26,989 47,94,816 34,79,017 2009-10 P.T.Varghese 39,78,230 11,50,958 51,29,188 45,00,000 33,49,047 1,01,51,363 4. The CIT(A) has overlooked that going by CIT(A)’s own logic, unexplained credit total Rs.1,01,51,363 in A.Y. 2009-10. This ought to have been

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 310/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

26,989 47,94,816 34,79,017 2009-10 P.T.Varghese 39,78,230 11,50,958 51,29,188 45,00,000 33,49,047 1,01,51,363 4. The CIT(A) has overlooked that going by CIT(A)’s own logic, unexplained credit total Rs.1,01,51,363 in A.Y. 2009-10. This ought to have been

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL, TRICHUR, TRICHUR

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

ITA 311/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

26,989 47,94,816 34,79,017 2009-10 P.T.Varghese 39,78,230 11,50,958 51,29,188 45,00,000 33,49,047 1,01,51,363 4. The CIT(A) has overlooked that going by CIT(A)’s own logic, unexplained credit total Rs.1,01,51,363 in A.Y. 2009-10. This ought to have been

KAIPPALLIL JEWELLERS,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 212/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Oct 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Respondent: Ms.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 68

26,000 as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT(A), who confirmed the order of the AO. 3.1 Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from

SREEVALSAM HOTELS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LTD,RAJAVALSAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 115/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

26) of the Act. The confirmations obtained from these creditors are found to be defective for certain discrepancies and mismatch in signatures, etc. The AO further returned a finding that all these loan creditors were deriving income from executing contracts with the government of Nagaland, were mere name lenders and opened bank accounted operated by Shri Rajendran Pillai. Business receipts

SRI.ANWARSADATH,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 457/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 147Section 68

10-2002, a payment of Rs. 1,71,758 was effected to the assessee on 26-11-2002 after setting of the loan availed.” 6. As such it was concluded that the assessee was left with no money other than the aforesaid sum of Rs, 1,71,758 during the period relevant to AY 2003-04 to be introduced