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.

385 results for “section 68”+ Section 13(8)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi7,745Mumbai6,430Bangalore2,073Kolkata1,632Chennai1,496Ahmedabad1,402Jaipur1,178Hyderabad1,076Pune868Karnataka745Surat695Chandigarh670Indore645Cochin385Raipur377Visakhapatnam319Rajkot310Nagpur206Amritsar196Cuttack189Agra180Lucknow175Guwahati143Telangana141Ranchi103SC100Jodhpur98Allahabad85Jabalpur82Calcutta78Patna76Dehradun60Panaji44Varanasi26Rajasthan17Orissa12Kerala12A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Uttarakhand3Gauhati3Punjab & Haryana2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Tripura1Himachal Pradesh1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Andhra Pradesh1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 14A120Limitation/Time-bar57Addition to Income23Section 25022Section 14722Deduction20Disallowance20Section 143(3)15Section 153A15Section 68

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 303/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

68 / 69 of the IT Act, 1961 4. Without prejudice to the above there is no justification to assess the income from business declared by the appellant invoking section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 5. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have found that the income declared pursuant .to survey conducted in the appellant

Showing 1–20 of 385 · Page 1 of 20

...
13
Section 15413
Section 115B12

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 302/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

68 / 69 of the IT Act, 1961 4. Without prejudice to the above there is no justification to assess the income from business declared by the appellant invoking section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 5. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have found that the income declared pursuant .to survey conducted in the appellant

M/S PAZHAYANGADI G GOLD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69

8 creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in relation to the introduction of capital by its partners. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the solitary addition made by the AO vide assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act was only under section 68

BHIMA JEWELLERS,SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD vs. THE PR CIT, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 208/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.208/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Bhima Jewellers, Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income- 6/785 Ai, Tax, Kozhikode. Mysore Road, Chungum Junction, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad-673 592. [Pan: Aakfb 9817C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Revenue By Shri Dhanaraj A. Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2018

Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

8. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was perfectly right in holding that the value of the gold was liable to be included in the income of the assessee as the source of investment in the gold or of its acquisition was not explained and that the assessee was not entitled to claim that the value of the gold would

M/S.SAHYADRI AGENCIES LTD,KANDNASSERY, THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), THRISSUR

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

ITA 439/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Bomi Daruwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly in this case, the assessment was taken up for limited scrutiny under CASS for the reason 9 M/s.Sahyadri Agencies Limited. of (i) large interest expenses relatable to exempt income u/s 14A of the I.T.Act, and (ii) huge interest paid which are not commensurate with the loans

SRI.THOMAS EAPEN,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 115BSection 68

68 of the Act. In other words, the Assessing Officer has not at all rejected the books of accounts of the assessee. Section 44AD provides that where the assessee is engaged in eligible business as proprietor under that section, a sum equal to 8% of the gross receipts shall be deemed to be the profits and gains

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 141/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

8. The assessee has raised following common grounds of appeal: 1. Assessing Officer has erred in arriving at a conclusion that the appellant is co-operative bank and disallowing the deduction u/s. 80P without considering the CBDT Circular 133 of 2007 dated 09/05/2007). 2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 93/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

8. The assessee has raised following common grounds of appeal: 1. Assessing Officer has erred in arriving at a conclusion that the appellant is co-operative bank and disallowing the deduction u/s. 80P without considering the CBDT Circular 133 of 2007 dated 09/05/2007). 2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit

THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 47/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

8. The assessee has raised following common grounds of appeal: 1. Assessing Officer has erred in arriving at a conclusion that the appellant is co-operative bank and disallowing the deduction u/s. 80P without considering the CBDT Circular 133 of 2007 dated 09/05/2007). 2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 400/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

8. The assessee has raised following common grounds of appeal: 1. Assessing Officer has erred in arriving at a conclusion that the appellant is co-operative bank and disallowing the deduction u/s. 80P without considering the CBDT Circular 133 of 2007 dated 09/05/2007). 2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 563/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

8. The assessee has raised following common grounds of appeal: 1. Assessing Officer has erred in arriving at a conclusion that the appellant is co-operative bank and disallowing the deduction u/s. 80P without considering the CBDT Circular 133 of 2007 dated 09/05/2007). 2. Assessing Officer has erred in treating the deposits received from members as ‘unexplained cash credit

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

13-06-2002 transferring the entire maturity proceeds towards pending liabilities of the chitty. As for another chitty No. 12/2000-A 9 commenced on 31-10-2000, the assessee availed a chitty loan on 14-02-2002 against the security of the said chitty and consequent to the auction of the chitty on 22- 10-2002, a payment

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

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

ITA 456/COCH/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 147Section 68

13-06-2002 transferring the entire maturity proceeds towards pending liabilities of the chitty. As for another chitty No. 12/2000-A 9 commenced on 31-10-2000, the assessee availed a chitty loan on 14-02-2002 against the security of the said chitty and consequent to the auction of the chitty on 22- 10-2002, a payment

SASI CHELLAN,TRIVANDRUM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

ITA 750/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr. ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, CA
Section 56Section 68

section 68 without proper appreciation of facts. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the referred capital introduced during the year were only out of accumulated savings of agricultural and other income. The Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) should have considered the appellant has a proven history of filing income tax returns regularly

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

13,15,799 58,26,989 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

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

13,15,799 58,26,989 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

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

13,15,799 58,26,989 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

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

13,15,799 58,26,989 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

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

13,15,799 58,26,989 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

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

13,15,799 58,26,989 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