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.

327 results for “section 68”+ Section 17clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi6,694Mumbai5,662Bangalore1,860Chennai1,358Kolkata1,308Ahmedabad1,253Jaipur1,076Hyderabad974Pune733Karnataka726Surat634Indore594Chandigarh581Cochin327Raipur315Visakhapatnam275Rajkot272Nagpur202Amritsar171Cuttack164Agra163Lucknow158Telangana132Guwahati130SC90Jodhpur85Patna82Allahabad81Ranchi77Calcutta74Dehradun55Panaji44Varanasi25Jabalpur24Rajasthan14Orissa10Kerala9A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Gauhati3Uttarakhand3Andhra Pradesh1Punjab & Haryana1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Tripura1Himachal Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Limitation/Time-bar49Section 201(1)40Section 14A36Section 271C34Addition to Income25Section 25020Section 20120Section 143(3)16Section 153A14Section 263

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, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent; and (b) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). (2) Notwithstanding anything contained

Showing 1–20 of 327 · Page 1 of 17

...
14
TDS14
Disallowance11

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, at the rate of thirty per cent; and (b) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). (2) Notwithstanding anything contained

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 of the Act. Further, it is pertinent to note that, unlike section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which requires the AO to record the satisfaction as regards various circumstances as dealt therein, no such requirement under the provisions of section 271AAC of the Act has been brought to our attention. 16. Therefore, in the present case

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 for the issue / allotment of OPCCPS would have a potential tax escapement of income far exceeding the amount prescribed in the CBDT Instructions. Therefore, we are of the view that this is a fit case for invoking the revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, especially in the light of the judgment

SREEPATHY TRUST,THRISSUR vs. CIT, CIRCLE 1, THRISSUR

In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 65/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No. 65/Coch/2024 stands dismissed. 7. ITA No. 66/Coch/2024 – This appeal arises on similar facts for the assessment year 2016–17

SREEPATHY TRUST,THRISSUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLE 1(1) , THRISSUR

In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 66/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No. 65/Coch/2024 stands dismissed. 7. ITA No. 66/Coch/2024 – This appeal arises on similar facts for the assessment year 2016–17

PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 387/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

17 on 30.09.2016 disclosing Nil income after claiming deduction under the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward 2(1), Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 24.12.2018 passed

PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 343/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

17 on 30.09.2016 disclosing Nil income after claiming deduction under the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward 2(1), Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 24.12.2018 passed

PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO WARD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 380/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

17 on 30.09.2016 disclosing Nil income after claiming deduction under the provisions of section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward 2(1), Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 24.12.2018 passed

RAJU JOSEPH VAYALAT,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, WARD-2(5), KOCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 273/COCH/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

Section 68 of the Act. The assessee sought time but failed to furnish any further explanation. Accordingly, the AO reduced the current year’s profit of Rs. 17

M/S.SNEHA TRUST FOR CHARITY EDUATION,PALALLAD vs. THE ACIT, PALAKKAD

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

ITA 731/COCH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.T.M.SreedharanFor Respondent: Sri.Mrithunjaya Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 68

17,00,000 4,90,000 11,90,000 33,80,000 ITA No.731/Coch/2019. 2 M/s.Sneha Trust for Charity and Education. 3.1 The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that out of the total amount of Rs.33,80,000 received in above three assessment years, a sum of Rs.8,80,000 was unexplained income in the hands of the assessee

V.K.M FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,TAMILNADU vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, THRISSUR

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

ITA 939/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2017-18 Vkm Feeds Private Limited, Acit, Central Circle, 2, Reservoir Street, Thrissur Venkatesa Colony, Vs. Pollachi-642001 Tamil Nadu Pan : Aafcv2454D (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shaji Paulose, Ca For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Paulose, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 250Section 68

17. We have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 18. The primary grievance which arises in the present appeals pertains to whether the ITAT was right in deleting additions made under Section 68

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)

17,817 which has been denied in the intimation u/s.143(1)(a). Though as per the provisions of section 80AC, the assessee is denied the deduction u/s.80P it is also important to examine whether the same can be done u/s.143(1)(a). In this regard we will look at the provisions of section 143(1)(a) which reads

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 61/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

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

Section 14A

17,68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 133/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

Section 14A

17,68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 60/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

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

Section 14A

17,68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 128/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

Section 14A

17,68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT KTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 696/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

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

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 736/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 735/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging