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.

34 results for “section 68”+ Section 264clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi626 Mumbai502 Karnataka444 Bangalore181 Kolkata154 Jaipur139 Chennai125 Ahmedabad80 Hyderabad56 Pune53 Calcutta51 Indore44 Chandigarh43 Cochin34 Surat33 Visakhapatnam23 Rajkot21 Cuttack20 Raipur18 SC17 Lucknow15 Telangana14 Nagpur11 Allahabad9 Guwahati9 Dehradun7 Agra6 Rajasthan6 Jodhpur5 Varanasi5 Patna4 Jabalpur4 Amritsar4 Ranchi2 Orissa2 Andhra Pradesh1 Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Addition to Income28 Exemption14 Section 143(3)11 Section 153A10 Section 26310 Section 4010 Section 1476 Section 1325 Section 80P5 Section 40A(3)

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 115Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69

264/- made in the assessment is undisclosed income coming within the purview of section 68, it being a sum found

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2

5

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

68,89,029/- rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 80P(2) of the Act while treating the same as income from other sources. According to the AO the said amount of interest is liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources since the assessee-Society has invested the surplus fund as an ordinary investor. According

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

68,89,029/- rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 80P(2) of the Act while treating the same as income from other sources. According to the AO the said amount of interest is liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources since the assessee-Society has invested the surplus fund as an ordinary investor. According

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

68,89,029/- rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 80P(2) of the Act while treating the same as income from other sources. According to the AO the said amount of interest is liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources since the assessee-Society has invested the surplus fund as an ordinary investor. According

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

68,89,029/- rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 80P(2) of the Act while treating the same as income from other sources. According to the AO the said amount of interest is liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources since the assessee-Society has invested the surplus fund as an ordinary investor. According

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

68,89,029/- rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 80P(2) of the Act while treating the same as income from other sources. According to the AO the said amount of interest is liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources since the assessee-Society has invested the surplus fund as an ordinary investor. According

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

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

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 or reduced accordingly

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

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 or reduced accordingly

SRI.THOMAS EAPEN,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 115BSection 68

68 of the Act. In other words, the Assessing Officer has not at all rejected the books of accounts of the assessee. Section 44AD provides that where the assessee is engaged in eligible business as proprietor under that section, a sum equal to 8% of the gross receipts shall be deemed to be the profits and gains

THOMAS CHERIAN,THANE vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TXN, DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TXN

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

ITA 776/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Thomas Cherian .......... Appellant A-2, Happy House, Sector A9, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Thane 400703 [Pan: Apjpc6676G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram Appellant By: Shri Vardhaman Jain, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 53C

68,425/-. The AO adopted the same as sale consideration invoking provisions of section 50C of the Act. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant sought exemption from capital gains by stating that the capital gains were wrongly offered to tax by submitting that the property sold was agricultural property situated in rural area and, therefore

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SUNNY JACOB JEWELLERS AND WEDDING CENTRE, KOTTARAKKARA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 476/COCH/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

68 ITD 288) (ITAT, All.) d) Anjenaya Brick Works vs. ACIT (74 TTJ Bangalore 921) e) Poornima Beri vs. DCIT (264 ITR AT 54) (Amritsar) f) CIT vs. Gupta Abushan Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 166) (Del) g) CIT vs. Padamchand Ramgopal (76 ITR 719) (SC) h) CIT vs. Ghodavath Pan Masala P. Ltd. (250 ITR 570) (Mum) I.T.A. Nos.326/Coch/2016

THE ACIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.SUNNY JACOB JEWELLERS & WEDDING CENTRE, KOTTARAKKARA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 326/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

68 ITD 288) (ITAT, All.) d) Anjenaya Brick Works vs. ACIT (74 TTJ Bangalore 921) e) Poornima Beri vs. DCIT (264 ITR AT 54) (Amritsar) f) CIT vs. Gupta Abushan Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 166) (Del) g) CIT vs. Padamchand Ramgopal (76 ITR 719) (SC) h) CIT vs. Ghodavath Pan Masala P. Ltd. (250 ITR 570) (Mum) I.T.A. Nos.326/Coch/2016

THE ITO, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SUNNY JACOB JEWELLERS AND WEDDING CENTRE, KOTTARAKKARA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 477/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

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

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

68 ITD 288) (ITAT, All.) d) Anjenaya Brick Works vs. ACIT (74 TTJ Bangalore 921) e) Poornima Beri vs. DCIT (264 ITR AT 54) (Amritsar) f) CIT vs. Gupta Abushan Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 166) (Del) g) CIT vs. Padamchand Ramgopal (76 ITR 719) (SC) h) CIT vs. Ghodavath Pan Masala P. Ltd. (250 ITR 570) (Mum) I.T.A. Nos.326/Coch/2016

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)

68,69,69A,69B and 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the Financial year of such investment/expenditure and identification of source of corresponding income was not required under law. According to the CIT(A), seized documents PC-I(8) & PC-I(23) read with PC-I(22) established that the assessee was having undisclosed turnover during the period relevant

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)

68,69,69A,69B and 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the Financial year of such investment/expenditure and identification of source of corresponding income was not required under law. According to the CIT(A), seized documents PC-I(8) & PC-I(23) read with PC-I(22) established that the assessee was having undisclosed turnover during the period relevant

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)

68,69,69A,69B and 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the Financial year of such investment/expenditure and identification of source of corresponding income was not required under law. According to the CIT(A), seized documents PC-I(8) & PC-I(23) read with PC-I(22) established that the assessee was having undisclosed turnover during the period relevant

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)

68,69,69A,69B and 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the Financial year of such investment/expenditure and identification of source of corresponding income was not required under law. According to the CIT(A), seized documents PC-I(8) & PC-I(23) read with PC-I(22) established that the assessee was having undisclosed turnover during the period relevant

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)

68,69,69A,69B and 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the Financial year of such investment/expenditure and identification of source of corresponding income was not required under law. According to the CIT(A), seized documents PC-I(8) & PC-I(23) read with PC-I(22) established that the assessee was having undisclosed turnover during the period relevant

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)

68,69,69A,69B and 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the Financial year of such investment/expenditure and identification of source of corresponding income was not required under law. According to the CIT(A), seized documents PC-I(8) & PC-I(23) read with PC-I(22) established that the assessee was having undisclosed turnover during the period relevant