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.

105 results for “section 68”+ Section 127clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,183Mumbai714Karnataka491Jaipur287Bangalore250Ahmedabad174Kolkata168Hyderabad148Chandigarh135Indore108Cochin105Chennai102Pune75Nagpur60Raipur56Visakhapatnam55Calcutta53Surat46Telangana43Lucknow40Rajkot33Cuttack30Guwahati26Patna25Agra14Jodhpur12SC12Amritsar12Dehradun8Ranchi8Allahabad5Rajasthan5Varanasi5Orissa4Jabalpur4Panaji2Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 250108Section 153A58Addition to Income30Section 143(3)21Section 142(1)16Exemption13Section 1278Section 1445Section 245C(1)5Natural Justice

SMT.K.B.SONY,COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, i) The appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 320/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 69

Section 36 deals with other deduction in respect of premium paid, interest etc. 3.7 In the present case, there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer that the sassessee has not incurred any expenditure. The only allegation is that the assessee has not rendered any services to M/s. Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. In our opinion when there

THE ACIT, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI MILLENIUM IMPEX P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 492/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

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

Showing 1–20 of 105 · Page 1 of 6

5
Limitation/Time-bar5
Section 684
For Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 124Section 127Section 68

127 of the 1. T Act was passed to that effect. So the ACIT , Kollam has passed the order U / s 143 (3) W.r.s 147 without jurisdiction. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax should have noted that the Appellant has filed their objection u/s 124 (3) before the ACIT, Kollam, vide their letter dtd 16/10/2017 , which was not even dealt

THE ACIT, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI SWITCH GEAR (P) LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 490/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 124Section 127Section 68

127 of the 1. T Act was passed to that effect. So the ACIT , Kollam has passed the order U / s 143 (3) W.r.s 147 without jurisdiction. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax should have noted that the Appellant has filed their objection u/s 124 (3) before the ACIT, Kollam, vide their letter dtd 16/10/2017 , which was not even dealt

THE ACIT, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI SWITCH GEAR (P) LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 491/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 124Section 127Section 68

127 of the 1. T Act was passed to that effect. So the ACIT , Kollam has passed the order U / s 143 (3) W.r.s 147 without jurisdiction. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax should have noted that the Appellant has filed their objection u/s 124 (3) before the ACIT, Kollam, vide their letter dtd 16/10/2017 , which was not even dealt

THE ACIT, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI MILLENIUM IMPEX P. LTD, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 493/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 124Section 127Section 68

127 of the 1. T Act was passed to that effect. So the ACIT , Kollam has passed the order U / s 143 (3) W.r.s 147 without jurisdiction. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax should have noted that the Appellant has filed their objection u/s 124 (3) before the ACIT, Kollam, vide their letter dtd 16/10/2017 , which was not even dealt

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 308/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

68,69,69A,69B and 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the Financial year of such investment/expenditure and identification of source of corresponding income was not required under law. According to the CIT(A), seized documents PC-I(8) & PC-I(23) read with PC-I(22) established that the assessee was having undisclosed turnover during the period relevant

DCIT, ERNAKULAM vs. MATHA ENTERPRISES, ANGAMALLY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 269/COCH/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2001-02

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

68,69,69A,69B and 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the Financial year of such investment/expenditure and identification of source of corresponding income was not required under law. According to the CIT(A), seized documents PC-I(8) & PC-I(23) read with PC-I(22) established that the assessee was having undisclosed turnover during the period relevant

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 509/COCH/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

68,69,69A,69B and 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the Financial year of such investment/expenditure and identification of source of corresponding income was not required under law. According to the CIT(A), seized documents PC-I(8) & PC-I(23) read with PC-I(22) established that the assessee was having undisclosed turnover during the period relevant

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 303/COCH/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2002-03

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

68,69,69A,69B and 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the Financial year of such investment/expenditure and identification of source of corresponding income was not required under law. According to the CIT(A), seized documents PC-I(8) & PC-I(23) read with PC-I(22) established that the assessee was having undisclosed turnover during the period relevant

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 513/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

68,69,69A,69B and 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the Financial year of such investment/expenditure and identification of source of corresponding income was not required under law. According to the CIT(A), seized documents PC-I(8) & PC-I(23) read with PC-I(22) established that the assessee was having undisclosed turnover during the period relevant

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 304/COCH/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2003-04

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

68,69,69A,69B and 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the Financial year of such investment/expenditure and identification of source of corresponding income was not required under law. According to the CIT(A), seized documents PC-I(8) & PC-I(23) read with PC-I(22) established that the assessee was having undisclosed turnover during the period relevant

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 507/COCH/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2001-02

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

68,69,69A,69B and 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the Financial year of such investment/expenditure and identification of source of corresponding income was not required under law. According to the CIT(A), seized documents PC-I(8) & PC-I(23) read with PC-I(22) established that the assessee was having undisclosed turnover during the period relevant

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)

127, the time limit for completion of assessment proceedings for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 which would have got time barred by 31.12.2019, got extended by 181 days and accordingly, the time limit to pass the assessment orders for these years stood revised to 29.06.2020. The assessee failed to file the requisite documents despite various notices which

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)

127, the time limit for completion of assessment proceedings for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 which would have got time barred by 31.12.2019, got extended by 181 days and accordingly, the time limit to pass the assessment orders for these years stood revised to 29.06.2020. The assessee failed to file the requisite documents despite various notices which

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)

127, the time limit for completion of assessment proceedings for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 which would have got time barred by 31.12.2019, got extended by 181 days and accordingly, the time limit to pass the assessment orders for these years stood revised to 29.06.2020. The assessee failed to file the requisite documents despite various notices which

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)

127, the time limit for completion of assessment proceedings for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 which would have got time barred by 31.12.2019, got extended by 181 days and accordingly, the time limit to pass the assessment orders for these years stood revised to 29.06.2020. The assessee failed to file the requisite documents despite various notices which

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)

127, the time limit for completion of assessment proceedings for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 which would have got time barred by 31.12.2019, got extended by 181 days and accordingly, the time limit to pass the assessment orders for these years stood revised to 29.06.2020. The assessee failed to file the requisite documents despite various notices which

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)

127, the time limit for completion of assessment proceedings for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 which would have got time barred by 31.12.2019, got extended by 181 days and accordingly, the time limit to pass the assessment orders for these years stood revised to 29.06.2020. The assessee failed to file the requisite documents despite various notices which

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)

127, the time limit for completion of assessment proceedings for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 which would have got time barred by 31.12.2019, got extended by 181 days and accordingly, the time limit to pass the assessment orders for these years stood revised to 29.06.2020. The assessee failed to file the requisite documents despite various notices which

K.ABDUL VAHEED,TALIPARAMBA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , KOZHIKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 502/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

Section 250

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, which apply in cases of discrepancies in the books of accounts, were not invoked in this case. Therefore, we set aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him. Consequently, the assessee’s ground of appeal is hereby allowed