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.

107 results for “section 68”+ Section 131clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,311Mumbai1,970Kolkata941Jaipur539Karnataka484Bangalore427Ahmedabad368Hyderabad336Chennai328Pune207Chandigarh198Indore193Surat159Raipur124Cochin107Nagpur102Rajkot83Visakhapatnam79Calcutta73Guwahati64Lucknow48Telangana44Jodhpur39Cuttack36Amritsar36Ranchi29Agra20Dehradun19Allahabad15Patna13SC12Jabalpur7Varanasi7Rajasthan6Orissa5Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 250108Addition to Income31Section 153A22Section 143(3)18Section 14A13Exemption13Section 14712Section 14411Section 689Limitation/Time-bar

SRI UMA MAHESHWARA RAO CHINNI,GUNTUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 895/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

68 to 69D. 4.9 The provisions of 115BBE taxing certain types of income @ 60% were brought on statute by Finance Act, 2017 after demonization, after introduction of prevention of Black Money (Undisclosed foreign income & assets) Act; Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, etc., with a view to curb the mischief of subsequently disclosing the undisclosed cash/entries/assets of earlier years

Showing 1–20 of 107 · Page 1 of 6

9
Section 368
Capital Gains8

SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 899/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

68 to 69D. 4.9 The provisions of 115BBE taxing certain types of income @ 60% were brought on statute by Finance Act, 2017 after demonization, after introduction of prevention of Black Money (Undisclosed foreign income & assets) Act; Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, etc., with a view to curb the mischief of subsequently disclosing the undisclosed cash/entries/assets of earlier years

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 354/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 355/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

131 ITR 597 (SC) which is altogether on a different issue. 4. Is not the order of the Tribunal against the principle laid down in 284 ITR 557?" 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the respondent assessee was the proprietor of Kavitha Theatre, Ernakulam, till 14.08.1998. On 14.08.1998, the assessee converted the proprietory concern into

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

section 68 of the I.T.Act in respect of the issue / allotment of shares (OPCCPS). The 13 M/s.Sahyadri Agencies Limited. Assessing Officer ought to have, even in a limited scrutiny assessment, prima facie examined whether there is a case of escapement of income exceeding the amount prescribed under the Board Instructions. The A.O. after prima facie examination, has found this

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

68 of the Act and is so assessed.” 4.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2004-05, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,90,709/- on account of unexplained credits in the capital and chitty installments. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer reads as follows: “4. As regards to the source of capital introduced during the year over

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

68 of the Act and is so assessed.” 4.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2004-05, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,90,709/- on account of unexplained credits in the capital and chitty installments. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer reads as follows: “4. As regards to the source of capital introduced during the year over

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

ITA 921/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

131 (Ker)), was that the same would by itself, without anything more, trigger the jurisdiction to assess, abating all pending assessments, the second, which found favour with the Hon’ble Apex Court, is that it would only be on the strength of materials found during search, and not otherwise. As such, if no incriminating material indicating undisclosed income

M/S SANTHIMADOM HERBAL CITY TRUST,ERNAKULAM vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, KOCHI

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

ITA 920/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 153C

131 (Ker)), was that the same would by itself, without anything more, trigger the jurisdiction to assess, abating all pending assessments, the second, which found favour with the Hon’ble Apex Court, is that it would only be on the strength of materials found during search, and not otherwise. As such, if no incriminating material indicating undisclosed income

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

131 of the Act of Shri Russel Mehta, M.D. of M/s. Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. which was engaged in diamond merchandise and based in Bombay, that no meaningful services were rendered by the assessee and as such, the payments were made not for any professional services rendered. As per the statement of M.D. of M/s. Rosy Blue (India

MR.SEEGLIN JOSE MORAIS OUSEPH,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 472/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 131Section 17Section 68Section 91

131 and 245U of the Income Tax Act vis-à-vis order 19 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code had been totally neglected by the authorities. I.T.A. No.472/Coch/2018 2. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) ought to have found that the cash credits of Rs.20,18,000/- with ICICI Bank does not constitute taxable income

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

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

131 of the Act. As per the balance sheet schedules of Mis Basanth Impex. they have Sundry Creditors and Sundry Debtors. Where as the asseessee has grouped the receipts under loans and advances for A Y 2010-11. Similarly the facts narrated above makes the following abundantly clear: a. Shri P Sunil Kumar is the main person conducting the business

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

131 of the Act. As per the balance sheet schedules of Mis Basanth Impex. they have Sundry Creditors and Sundry Debtors. Where as the asseessee has grouped the receipts under loans and advances for A Y 2010-11. Similarly the facts narrated above makes the following abundantly clear: a. Shri P Sunil Kumar is the main person conducting the business

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

131 of the Act. As per the balance sheet schedules of Mis Basanth Impex. they have Sundry Creditors and Sundry Debtors. Where as the asseessee has grouped the receipts under loans and advances for A Y 2010-11. Similarly the facts narrated above makes the following abundantly clear: a. Shri P Sunil Kumar is the main person conducting the business