Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

156 results for “section 68”+ Section 139clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,226 Mumbai1,715 Jaipur714 Kolkata629 Bangalore590 Karnataka511 Chennai490 Ahmedabad422 Hyderabad315 Pune266 Chandigarh262 Surat259 Indore219 Cochin156 Visakhapatnam144 Nagpur123 Rajkot121 Agra99 Amritsar91 Raipur85 Lucknow73 Guwahati72 Cuttack54 Calcutta54 Jodhpur53 Patna45 Telangana39 Allahabad27 SC23 Varanasi14 Ranchi13 Jabalpur12 Panaji8 Rajasthan7 Dehradun7 Orissa5 Gauhati1 K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1 Tripura1 Uttarakhand1 Andhra Pradesh1 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 25070 Section 6852 Section 153A45 Addition to Income45 Section 153C36 Section 80P36 Section 14833 Section 139(1)29 Section 13227 Deduction

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, section 69, section 69A. section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

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

Showing 1–20 of 156 · Page 1 of 8

...

14

Unexplained Cash Credit12

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, section 69, section 69A. section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

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

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139

KOODARANHI REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL WELFARE CO-OP SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

ITA 953/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Johnson George, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

68,076/- and both the Centralized Processing Centre and first appellate authority are not justified in denying the above deduction 4. The provision containing section 80 AC of the act as to the filing of the return within the due date specified under section 139

M/S.MUKKAM MEGA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCEITY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

ITA 952/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Johnson George, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure 68[or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken

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, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C, section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

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, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C, section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139

THE MANNUR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,PALAKKAD vs. THE ITO WD-2, PALAKKAD

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

ITA 215/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sri.Sivadas ChittoorFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

section 139 or in response to Notice u/s 148 and 142(1) issued by the Assessing Officer at any stage. There is no evidence of filing of return by the appellant till date. In the case cited supra (Chirakkal Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. & Others [(2016) 68

AMBALAPPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,AMBALAPPUZHA vs. ITO, WARD -2, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed the and stay application stands dismissed

ITA 373/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm & Sa No. 53/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ambalapuzha Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Kakkazham, Vandanam, Alappuzha 688005 [Pan: Aacak0787F] Vs. The Income Tax Officer. Ward-2, Alappuzha .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Varma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69ASection 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The ITO, Ward-2, Alappuzha (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs. 58,00,000/- formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to tax. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In response to the notice the appellant submitted

AROOR CO-OP URBAN SOCIETY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. ITO, KOZHIKKODE

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

ITA 188/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahuaroor Co-Operative Urbn Society Dcit, Central Prossing Centre Aroor P.O., Kakkattil 673507 Bangalore Vs.

For Appellant: Shri V.S. Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80P

68 taxmann.com 298). He has submitted a copy of the P&L account in Annexure-2 which reads as follows: - S.No. Loss Rs. S.No. Profit Rs. 1 Total loss as per 1 Total profit as per trading account trading account 2 Interest 7359077 2 Interest receivable 5978097 outstanding 3 Establishment 1304782 3 expenses 4 Contingency 1231087 4 Miscellaneous 4242442 expenses

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

139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "tax on total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143. Explanation 3.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made

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

139 as applicable in the case of the assessee. Explanation 2.—In this sub-section, "tax on total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143" shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143. Explanation 3.—Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made

VENGOLA SERVICE CO OP BANK LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD 2, ALUVA

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

ITA 565/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Vengola Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant 13/621 Ab, Kunnathunadu Vengola P.O., Ernakulam 683556 [Pan: Aaaav1709N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward - 2, Aluva Appellant By: Shri Lokanathan R., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan R., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 270ASection 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

68,81,663/-. Unless the delay in return filing is condoned, the deduction u/s. 80P cannot be availed by the appellant. Therefore, in view of the above, the claim of the appellant is dismissed.” 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties

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

139(1). She had not even filed a return for the year even in response to notice served under section 153C of the Act. The current account statement of her husband Sri P.T. Johnson as in his proprietary business, St.Thomas Poultry Farm was studied. Even here, on the dates or on the nearby ITA No.310-316/Coch/2017. 6 M/s.Thomson Agencies. dates

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

139(1). She had not even filed a return for the year even in response to notice served under section 153C of the Act. The current account statement of her husband Sri P.T. Johnson as in his proprietary business, St.Thomas Poultry Farm was studied. Even here, on the dates or on the nearby ITA No.310-316/Coch/2017. 6 M/s.Thomson Agencies. dates

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

139(1). She had not even filed a return for the year even in response to notice served under section 153C of the Act. The current account statement of her husband Sri P.T. Johnson as in his proprietary business, St.Thomas Poultry Farm was studied. Even here, on the dates or on the nearby ITA No.310-316/Coch/2017. 6 M/s.Thomson Agencies. dates

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

139(1). She had not even filed a return for the year even in response to notice served under section 153C of the Act. The current account statement of her husband Sri P.T. Johnson as in his proprietary business, St.Thomas Poultry Farm was studied. Even here, on the dates or on the nearby ITA No.310-316/Coch/2017. 6 M/s.Thomson Agencies. dates

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

139(1). She had not even filed a return for the year even in response to notice served under section 153C of the Act. The current account statement of her husband Sri P.T. Johnson as in his proprietary business, St.Thomas Poultry Farm was studied. Even here, on the dates or on the nearby ITA No.310-316/Coch/2017. 6 M/s.Thomson Agencies. dates

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

139(1). She had not even filed a return for the year even in response to notice served under section 153C of the Act. The current account statement of her husband Sri P.T. Johnson as in his proprietary business, St.Thomas Poultry Farm was studied. Even here, on the dates or on the nearby ITA No.310-316/Coch/2017. 6 M/s.Thomson Agencies. dates

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

139(1). She had not even filed a return for the year even in response to notice served under section 153C of the Act. The current account statement of her husband Sri P.T. Johnson as in his proprietary business, St.Thomas Poultry Farm was studied. Even here, on the dates or on the nearby ITA No.310-316/Coch/2017. 6 M/s.Thomson Agencies. dates