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.

297 results for “section 68”+ Section 33clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,432Mumbai3,662Bangalore1,407Ahmedabad891Chennai884Jaipur717Karnataka688Kolkata684Hyderabad665Pune442Indore414Surat401Chandigarh386Cochin297Raipur248Visakhapatnam192Rajkot131Agra123Nagpur112Lucknow108Telangana106Amritsar104Cuttack94Calcutta69Ranchi68SC66Jabalpur64Guwahati55Allahabad54Jodhpur50Patna39Panaji34Dehradun22Varanasi15Rajasthan11Orissa9Kerala6Uttarakhand3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Tripura1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 80P113Section 25067Section 80P(2)(a)60Section 80P(2)32Disallowance32Deduction28Section 153A25Section 14A21Section 143(3)19Section 80P(4)

SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NEELA,NALGONDA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 899/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

68 to 69D. 4.9 The provisions of 115BBE taxing certain types of income @ 60% were brought on statute by Finance Act, 2017 after demonization, after introduction of prevention of Black Money (Undisclosed foreign income & assets) Act; Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, etc., with a view to curb the mischief of subsequently disclosing the undisclosed cash/entries/assets of earlier years

Showing 1–20 of 297 · Page 1 of 15

...
14
Addition to Income14
Limitation/Time-bar13

SRI UMA MAHESHWARA RAO CHINNI,GUNTUR vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOZHIKODE

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 895/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

68 to 69D. 4.9 The provisions of 115BBE taxing certain types of income @ 60% were brought on statute by Finance Act, 2017 after demonization, after introduction of prevention of Black Money (Undisclosed foreign income & assets) Act; Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, etc., with a view to curb the mischief of subsequently disclosing the undisclosed cash/entries/assets of earlier years

SRI.K.R.SURESHKUMAR,,TRICHUR vs. THE ACIT, TRICHUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 47/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalshri K.R. Sureshkumar Acit, Circle - 2(1) Kallada House Thrissur Vs. Thanissery Post Irinjalakuda, Thrissur Pan –Ajcps6553P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 68

33,155/- [in the capital account in the books of account of M/s. Kallada Tours and Travels] as unexplained under Section 68

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

Section 36 deals with other deduction in respect of premium paid, interest etc. 3.7 In the present case, there is no allegation by the Assessing Officer that the sassessee has not incurred any expenditure. The only allegation is that the assessee has not rendered any services to M/s. Rosy Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. In our opinion when there

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

section leaves no doubt that the addition u/s 68 has to be made in the hands of the assessee in whose books the credits appear and not in the hands of the creditor of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) in deciding that unexplained credits brought into the books of the firm by the partners need to considered

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 310/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

section leaves no doubt that the addition u/s 68 has to be made in the hands of the assessee in whose books the credits appear and not in the hands of the creditor of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) in deciding that unexplained credits brought into the books of the firm by the partners need to considered

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL, TRICHUR, TRICHUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

section leaves no doubt that the addition u/s 68 has to be made in the hands of the assessee in whose books the credits appear and not in the hands of the creditor of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) in deciding that unexplained credits brought into the books of the firm by the partners need to considered

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, TRICHUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

section leaves no doubt that the addition u/s 68 has to be made in the hands of the assessee in whose books the credits appear and not in the hands of the creditor of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) in deciding that unexplained credits brought into the books of the firm by the partners need to considered

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, TRICHUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 316/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

section leaves no doubt that the addition u/s 68 has to be made in the hands of the assessee in whose books the credits appear and not in the hands of the creditor of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) in deciding that unexplained credits brought into the books of the firm by the partners need to considered

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, TRICHUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 313/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

section leaves no doubt that the addition u/s 68 has to be made in the hands of the assessee in whose books the credits appear and not in the hands of the creditor of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) in deciding that unexplained credits brought into the books of the firm by the partners need to considered

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI, KOCHI vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, TRICHUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 315/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

section leaves no doubt that the addition u/s 68 has to be made in the hands of the assessee in whose books the credits appear and not in the hands of the creditor of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) in deciding that unexplained credits brought into the books of the firm by the partners need to considered

THE KALAKKODU SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. THE ITO, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 164/COCH/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shrigeorge George K.And Shrilaxmi Prasad Sahu(Assessment Year:2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 32Section 36Section 61Section 80P

33 (Kerala) wherein it was held as under: - “7. We have perused the record and noted the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on this point. We are of the view that the Revenue has accepted the assessment order to the extent of granting deduction of Rs. 69,323/- in the computation of total income of assessee

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

33,60,354 should not be treated as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee sought

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

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 for the assessment year under consideration, i.e., Asst.Year

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

33,67,540/- to the total income of the assessee. 4. The Ld.CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and upheld the addition made by the AO on the basis of the statement recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act during the course of the search. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

VENUS INDUSTRIES,KODUNGALLUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 401/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Binisha Baby, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 68

33,90,756/- for failure of the assessee to satisfy the ingredients of section 68 of the Act. The AO also

VENUS INDUSTRIES,KODUNGALLUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), THRISSUR

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

ITA 402/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Binisha Baby, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 68

33,90,756/- for failure of the assessee to satisfy the ingredients of section 68 of the Act. The AO also

THE ITO,, COCHIN vs. M.SKERALA AYURVEDA LTD, ALUVA

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 307/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.BindhuFor Respondent: Sri.Mathew Joseph
Section 14A

33,68,682, a sum of Rs.4,87,58,962 was investment made in a foreign subsidiary company, which does not give raise to any exempted income, and therefore, the provisions of section

THE ITO,, COCHIN vs. M.SKERALA AYURVEDA LTD, ALUVA

In the result, ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 308/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.BindhuFor Respondent: Sri.Mathew Joseph
Section 14A

33,68,682, a sum of Rs.4,87,58,962 was investment made in a foreign subsidiary company, which does not give raise to any exempted income, and therefore, the provisions of section

JANATHA TRADING CORPORATION,ALUVA vs. THE DCIT, ALUVA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 303/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. Nos.303/Coch/2014 & 128/ Coch/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 & 2010-11 M/S. Janatha Trading Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Corporation, Market Road, Income-Tax, Circle-1, Aluva. Aluva. [Pan: Aabfj 8478K]

33,000/- was treated as assessee’s income u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. 10.1 On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. 10.2 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. AR submitted that the above amount was contributed by the partners who were assessed to income tax with the same