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.

63 results for “section 68”+ Section 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,255Delhi1,229Kolkata836Bangalore568Karnataka459Jaipur333Ahmedabad320Chennai300Pune175Chandigarh173Hyderabad147Indore143Rajkot127Surat121Visakhapatnam97Raipur91Calcutta70Panaji65Cochin63Nagpur62Lucknow58Agra39Cuttack38Guwahati34Amritsar28Jodhpur26Patna17Allahabad11SC10Telangana10Jabalpur9Ranchi8Dehradun8Rajasthan4Kerala3Varanasi3Uttarakhand1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 26396Section 6858Section 143(3)40Addition to Income32Section 115B29Revision u/s 26320Section 153A16Deduction16Section 80P15Section 40

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 271A

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4

12
Section 139(1)11
Disallowance10
Section 68
Section 69

68 of the Act. The AO further recorded the satisfaction that the income is under-reported by the assessee, and accordingly, a penalty under section 270A of the Act was initiated for under-reporting of income. 4. Subsequently, the learned PCIT issued a notice under section 263

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

section 68 would not apply. This explanation that was filed before the Ld.PCIT was not at all considered and verified eventhough it is a requirement u/s. 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

section 68 would not apply. This explanation that was filed before the Ld.PCIT was not at all considered and verified eventhough it is a requirement u/s. 263

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

263 of the I.T.Act for the purpose of examination of impact of section 56(2)(viib) or 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

68 should be taxed at 30%. iii) The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of M/s. Kerala Sponge Iron Ltd. held that unexplained cash credit cannot be treated as business income because it is not an income classifiable under any head of income as per section 14 and such incomes are not eligible

M/S. HEERA KERALA DEVELOPERS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 243/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Heera Kerala Developers Acit - Circle 1(1) Pvt. Ltd. Thiruvananthapurm Tc 15/1553(5), Heera Park Vs. Mp Appan Road, Vazhuthacaud Thiruvananthapurm 695014 Pan – Aabch8810R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 68o

Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This revision u/s 263

THE AD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALAPPUZHA vs. N S S KARAYOGAM, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 505/COCH/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.T.M.Sreedharan, Advocate
Section 143Section 148Section 153Section 254

68 taxmann.com 310 (Kol)] held this is a case of setting aside of the assessment and consequently the time limit for completion of assessment / reassessment is governed by the provisions of section 153(2A) of the I.T.Act. Therefore, it was concluded by the CIT(A) that the assessment order pursuant to the order of the ITAT is barred

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

263 of the Act in setting aside the assessment and remanded the case back to the file of the Assessing Officer to make enquiry into the issue and decide the same. As such, the CIT remitted the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. 3.2 Being so, in our opinion, there is no infirmity

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

263 of the Act in setting aside the assessment and remanded the case back to the file of the Assessing Officer to make enquiry into the issue and decide the same. As such, the CIT remitted the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. 3.2 Being so, in our opinion, there is no infirmity

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

263 of the Act in setting aside the assessment and remanded the case back to the file of the Assessing Officer to make enquiry into the issue and decide the same. As such, the CIT remitted the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. 3.2 Being so, in our opinion, there is no infirmity

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

263 of the Act in setting aside the assessment and remanded the case back to the file of the Assessing Officer to make enquiry into the issue and decide the same. As such, the CIT remitted the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. 3.2 Being so, in our opinion, there is no infirmity

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

263 of the Act in setting aside the assessment and remanded the case back to the file of the Assessing Officer to make enquiry into the issue and decide the same. As such, the CIT remitted the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. 3.2 Being so, in our opinion, there is no infirmity

M/S.ARMAJARO TRADING INDIA P. LTD,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO, KOCHI

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

ITA 10/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Mohit Ashok Parmar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Shantham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

section 263 be quashed or in the alternative, share application money be considered as capital receipt towards equity shares. The appellant prays accordingly.” 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee is a company engaged in the business of trading in cashew. For the assessment year 2016-2017, the return of income was filed

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

263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount of tax on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of this section has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased

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

263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount of tax on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of this section has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased

M/S.KAIRALI JEWELLERS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-1(4), TVM, TVM

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

ITA 51/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am M/S. Kairali Jewellers The Income Tax Officer Kairali Auditorium Ward 1(4) Vs. Maithanam, Varkala Thiruvananthapuram Trivandrum 695141 Pan – Aaefk6327N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shantham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 40A(3)Section 68

263 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2017 wherein also the AO has extracted the directions of the learned Pr. CIT as follows: - (i) Adequacy of profits as per trading results. (ii) Examining identify, genuineness and creditworthiness of purported creditors in accordance with section 68

SUPRIYA ENTERPRISES,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 301/COCH/2020[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S. Supriya Enterprises Principal Commissioner Of 16,263, Calicut Road Income Tax Vs. Manjeri, Malappuram 676121 Kozhikode

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68

section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961 as unexplained cash credit. 2. Accordingly a proposal for revision u/s 263

GEORGE KOCHUPARAMBIL, PROP. UNITED GRANITES & METALS,THODUPUZHA vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI, KOCHI

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

ITA 190/COCH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Juduicial Member & Ms. Padmavathy Sshri George Kochuparambil Kochuparambil House Dcit/Acit, Central Vazhithala P.O. Vs. Circle Thodupuzha Kochi Idukki 685583 Pan – Afjpk9650E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri M. Jarasekhar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2023

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Jarasekhar, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

68,773/-. The AO also reduced the net agricultural income to Rs.3,00,000/- vide order dated 30.12.2019. 3.2 The learned PCIT thereafter issued notice under Section 263

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

263 ITR 354 (Ker) (iv) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2006) 282 ITR 259 (Mad) (v) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) (vi) CIT vs. Chandni Buchar (2010) 323 ITR 510 (P&H) (vii) Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588 (P&H) (viii)Rajdeep Builders vs. ACIT in ITA No.666/CHD/2010 dated 27/04/2012 (ITAT Chandigarh Bench

M/S PRESTIGE MARKETING DIVISION,ALUVA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal and stay petition are dismissed

ITA 578/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT- D.R
Section 10Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 68Section 69A

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) dated 30.03.2022 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi (Pr. CIT) in respect of it’s assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 16.12.2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee-firm is a trader