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.

39 results for “section 68”+ Section 239clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi668Karnataka461Mumbai363Chennai138Bangalore130Kolkata117Jaipur98Ahmedabad74Hyderabad47Indore46Cochin39Chandigarh33Nagpur32Pune30Surat30Lucknow25Raipur20Rajkot16Calcutta16Guwahati14Telangana10SC9Agra8Visakhapatnam7Cuttack7Jodhpur6Amritsar4Rajasthan4Patna4Andhra Pradesh1Allahabad1Panaji1Jabalpur1Dehradun1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 153A48Section 201(1)40Section 271C30Section 20120Section 143(3)18Section 142(1)16TDS11Section 194J10Penalty10Addition to Income

SMT. MARIAMMA JOHN,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO< WD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

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

ITA 101/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 68

section 68 wherein it was stated that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him/her was not satisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the sum so credited may be charged

M/S.APOLLO TYRES LTD,COCHIN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN

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

ITA 609/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2013-14 Apollo Tyres Ltd. .......... Appellant 3Rd Floor, Areekal Mansion, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi 682036 [Pan: Aaaca6990Q] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.09.2025

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 14A8
Disallowance5
For Appellant: Shri Abraham Joseph Markos, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)Section 35Section 43(1)Section 92C

239 ITR 587. vii. The AO disallowed the claim made in the return of income on account of loss of unrealised foreign exchange rate fluctuation on capital assets. It is stated that during the previous year relevant to AY 2012-13, the loss on unrealised foreign exchange rate fluctuation on capital items of Rs. 2,18,26,172/- was added

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

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 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

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

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 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

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

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 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

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

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 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 4. On appeal

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 ITD 288 which was approved by Allahabad High Court reported in 186 Taxman 137) relied upon by the assessee with the argument that suppressed turnover can be brought to tax only for the period for which documents indicating the same were seized though had some relevance but was not squarely applicable in the assessee’s case for the reason

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 ITD 288 which was approved by Allahabad High Court reported in 186 Taxman 137) relied upon by the assessee with the argument that suppressed turnover can be brought to tax only for the period for which documents indicating the same were seized though had some relevance but was not squarely applicable in the assessee’s case for the reason

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 ITD 288 which was approved by Allahabad High Court reported in 186 Taxman 137) relied upon by the assessee with the argument that suppressed turnover can be brought to tax only for the period for which documents indicating the same were seized though had some relevance but was not squarely applicable in the assessee’s case for the reason

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 ITD 288 which was approved by Allahabad High Court reported in 186 Taxman 137) relied upon by the assessee with the argument that suppressed turnover can be brought to tax only for the period for which documents indicating the same were seized though had some relevance but was not squarely applicable in the assessee’s case for the reason

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 ITD 288 which was approved by Allahabad High Court reported in 186 Taxman 137) relied upon by the assessee with the argument that suppressed turnover can be brought to tax only for the period for which documents indicating the same were seized though had some relevance but was not squarely applicable in the assessee’s case for the reason

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 ITD 288 which was approved by Allahabad High Court reported in 186 Taxman 137) relied upon by the assessee with the argument that suppressed turnover can be brought to tax only for the period for which documents indicating the same were seized though had some relevance but was not squarely applicable in the assessee’s case for the reason

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 ITD 288 which was approved by Allahabad High Court reported in 186 Taxman 137) relied upon by the assessee with the argument that suppressed turnover can be brought to tax only for the period for which documents indicating the same were seized though had some relevance but was not squarely applicable in the assessee’s case for the reason

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 606/COCH/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

239 ITR 587. It is needless to mention that the assessee should be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. Coming to the penalty levied u/s.271C for the very same assessment years, i.e. assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, as we have set aside the orders of the authorities u/s.201

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 614/COCH/2010[007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

239 ITR 587. It is needless to mention that the assessee should be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. Coming to the penalty levied u/s.271C for the very same assessment years, i.e. assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, as we have set aside the orders of the authorities u/s.201

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 607/COCH/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

239 ITR 587. It is needless to mention that the assessee should be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. Coming to the penalty levied u/s.271C for the very same assessment years, i.e. assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, as we have set aside the orders of the authorities u/s.201

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 613/COCH/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

239 ITR 587. It is needless to mention that the assessee should be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. Coming to the penalty levied u/s.271C for the very same assessment years, i.e. assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, as we have set aside the orders of the authorities u/s.201

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 608/COCH/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

239 ITR 587. It is needless to mention that the assessee should be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. Coming to the penalty levied u/s.271C for the very same assessment years, i.e. assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, as we have set aside the orders of the authorities u/s.201

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 615/COCH/2010[09-Aug]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

239 ITR 587. It is needless to mention that the assessee should be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. Coming to the penalty levied u/s.271C for the very same assessment years, i.e. assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, as we have set aside the orders of the authorities u/s.201

M/S JEEVAN TELECASTING CORPN LTD,COCHIN vs. ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, ITA Nos.606 to 610/Coch/2010 are partly allowed and ITA Nos

ITA 610/COCH/2010[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sri.Iype John, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

239 ITR 587. It is needless to mention that the assessee should be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. 6. Coming to the penalty levied u/s.271C for the very same assessment years, i.e. assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09, as we have set aside the orders of the authorities u/s.201