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.

205 results for “section 68”+ Section 42clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,001 Mumbai3,069 Bangalore1,196 Chennai841 Ahmedabad790 Kolkata733 Karnataka666 Hyderabad628 Jaipur591 Indore385 Pune374 Chandigarh318 Surat300 Raipur219 Cochin205 Rajkot149 Visakhapatnam146 Nagpur114 Agra109 Cuttack97 Telangana93 Guwahati83 Lucknow82 Amritsar80 Calcutta67 Jabalpur66 Allahabad64 SC57 Ranchi51 Jodhpur32 Dehradun27 Patna16 Varanasi15 Rajasthan13 Orissa10 Kerala7 Panaji4 Uttarakhand4 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Andhra Pradesh1 Punjab & Haryana1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 25065 Addition to Income35 Limitation/Time-bar32 Section 14A12 Exemption12 Section 143(3)9 Unexplained Investment9 Section 153A8 Section 1325

E T DEVASSY AND SONS FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

ITA 536/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Assessing Officer who partly agreed but disagreed finally with the same and made addition in the quantum

For Appellant: Shri Hiran C, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 42Section 68Section 69Section 69A

42 of the Companies Act, 2013 by receiving the capital in cash. The CIT(A), in conclusion, relied upon the provisions contained in Section 69A and 68

Showing 1–20 of 205 · Page 1 of 11

...

Section 139(1)4

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

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

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

68,42,880/- towards Salary and other R&D expenses within the scope of "Fee for technical Services under explanation 2 of section

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. VALSALA RAJ, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 175/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 10(26)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Section 68 of the I.T. Act, the authorities below had also rejected the explanation given by the assessee that the amounts received by him were by way of loan from persons in Nagaland. Based on its earlier finding that the Revenue had not established that the bank accounts held by the other family members and group concerns actually belong

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. VALSALA RAJ, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 177/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 10(26)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Section 68 of the I.T. Act, the authorities below had also rejected the explanation given by the assessee that the amounts received by him were by way of loan from persons in Nagaland. Based on its earlier finding that the Revenue had not established that the bank accounts held by the other family members and group concerns actually belong

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 596/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 594/COCH/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 48/COCH/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 49/COCH/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 51/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SMT.ASHA MENON( ASHA SUNIL),COCHIN vs. THE ACIT(CEN,CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 595/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 46/COCH/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 47/COCH/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2004-05

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

SRI.O.G.SUNIL,COCHIN vs. DCIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 50/COCH/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

68 of the I.T. Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We find merit in the arguments of both the Counsels. Hence, in the interest of justice, this issue is I.T.A. Nos. 45-51/Coch/2014 & ITA Nos. 594 to 596/Coch/2018 S.P. Nos. 51-53/Coch/2018 remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer instead

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

42,19,190 37,68,860 4.1 During the course of search at the assessee’s business premises on 21/08/2007, it was noticed that the assessee had effected sales by issue of ’estimate slips’ instead of sale bills and the sale bills were prepared for accounting purposes only in few cases. It was also noticed that the sales on ‘estimate

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

42,19,190 37,68,860 4.1 During the course of search at the assessee’s business premises on 21/08/2007, it was noticed that the assessee had effected sales by issue of ’estimate slips’ instead of sale bills and the sale bills were prepared for accounting purposes only in few cases. It was also noticed that the sales on ‘estimate

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

42,19,190 37,68,860 4.1 During the course of search at the assessee’s business premises on 21/08/2007, it was noticed that the assessee had effected sales by issue of ’estimate slips’ instead of sale bills and the sale bills were prepared for accounting purposes only in few cases. It was also noticed that the sales on ‘estimate