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.

42 results for “section 68”+ Section 282clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi604Mumbai509Karnataka458Bangalore255Kolkata218Jaipur134Pune85Chennai73Chandigarh73Ahmedabad65Hyderabad61Panaji59Cochin42Indore35Surat32Allahabad25Amritsar25Jodhpur19Patna19Nagpur18Agra17Calcutta17Rajkot16Cuttack13Raipur13Lucknow12Visakhapatnam8Telangana6Varanasi6Rajasthan4SC3Ranchi2Guwahati2Andhra Pradesh1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Addition to Income34Exemption13Section 6811Section 139(1)11Section 153A11Section 2(24)(vi)8Section 488Capital Gains8Section 2635Section 143(3)

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

282 ITR 259) and confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) (294 ITR 49), third party statement cannot be considered as evidence so as to confirm the addition in the hands of the assessee unless there is corroborative material. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the addition made towards

THE ACIT, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P.SUNILKUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 351/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

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

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3

2
Section 80P(2)(a)2
Section 139(1)
Section 153A
Section 68

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI ENTERPRISES P. LTD,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 360/COCH/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2015-2016

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

SRI.P.SUNIL KUMAR,KOLLAM vs. THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE,KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 355/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI ENTERPRISES P. LTD,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 358/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE ACIT, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P. SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 347/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P>SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 354/COCH/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE DCIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P>SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 352/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, THE CENTRAL CIRCLE,KOLLAM vs. SRI.P.SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 349/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE ACIT, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P.SUNILKUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 348/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. M/S.SABARI ENTERPRISES P. LTD,, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 359/COCH/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. SRI.P.SUNIL KUMAR, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross

ITA 350/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

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

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

section 250(4)of the Act or he should have directed the Assessing Officer to cause necessary enquiry. Since he has failed to do so, he prayed that the issue may be remitted to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee sold the import licenses

SRI.ESSA ISMAIL SAIT,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-2(1),, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 605/COCH/2005[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

68,671/- is credited in the A/c of Farhana Sait maturity proceeds of a TDR. 9. In reply to Ld. DR’s submissions, the Ld. AR submitted as follows: 1. Advance of Rs 1 Crore to Shobhamony i) Sworn statement of Shobhamony recorded by the TRO on 29/03/2005. It was stated that she was conducting chitty business and received

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.MATHAI XAVIER, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 451/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

68,671/- is credited in the A/c of Farhana Sait maturity proceeds of a TDR. 9. In reply to Ld. DR’s submissions, the Ld. AR submitted as follows: 1. Advance of Rs 1 Crore to Shobhamony i) Sworn statement of Shobhamony recorded by the TRO on 29/03/2005. It was stated that she was conducting chitty business and received

THEACIT, CIR-1(1),EKM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 453/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

68,671/- is credited in the A/c of Farhana Sait maturity proceeds of a TDR. 9. In reply to Ld. DR’s submissions, the Ld. AR submitted as follows: 1. Advance of Rs 1 Crore to Shobhamony i) Sworn statement of Shobhamony recorded by the TRO on 29/03/2005. It was stated that she was conducting chitty business and received

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.E.M.PAUL, EDAKATTUKUDIYIL, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 449/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

68,671/- is credited in the A/c of Farhana Sait maturity proceeds of a TDR. 9. In reply to Ld. DR’s submissions, the Ld. AR submitted as follows: 1. Advance of Rs 1 Crore to Shobhamony i) Sworn statement of Shobhamony recorded by the TRO on 29/03/2005. It was stated that she was conducting chitty business and received

THE ACIT, CIR-1(1), ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. SRI.JOSE MATHEW, M/S.E.V.MTHAI & SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 450/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

68,671/- is credited in the A/c of Farhana Sait maturity proceeds of a TDR. 9. In reply to Ld. DR’s submissions, the Ld. AR submitted as follows: 1. Advance of Rs 1 Crore to Shobhamony i) Sworn statement of Shobhamony recorded by the TRO on 29/03/2005. It was stated that she was conducting chitty business and received

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.E.J.SONY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 355/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

68,671/- is credited in the A/c of Farhana Sait maturity proceeds of a TDR. 9. In reply to Ld. DR’s submissions, the Ld. AR submitted as follows: 1. Advance of Rs 1 Crore to Shobhamony i) Sworn statement of Shobhamony recorded by the TRO on 29/03/2005. It was stated that she was conducting chitty business and received

THE ITO, WD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.TOMY MATHEW PARTNER OF MATHAI SONS, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 419/COCH/2007[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

68,671/- is credited in the A/c of Farhana Sait maturity proceeds of a TDR. 9. In reply to Ld. DR’s submissions, the Ld. AR submitted as follows: 1. Advance of Rs 1 Crore to Shobhamony i) Sworn statement of Shobhamony recorded by the TRO on 29/03/2005. It was stated that she was conducting chitty business and received

THE ITO, WARD-2, THODUPUZHA, THODUPUZHA vs. SRI.MARTIN JOHNY, KOTHAMANGALAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeals

ITA 354/COCH/2006[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2019AY 1999-2000

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

Section 2(24)(vi)Section 48

68,671/- is credited in the A/c of Farhana Sait maturity proceeds of a TDR. 9. In reply to Ld. DR’s submissions, the Ld. AR submitted as follows: 1. Advance of Rs 1 Crore to Shobhamony i) Sworn statement of Shobhamony recorded by the TRO on 29/03/2005. It was stated that she was conducting chitty business and received