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.

252 results for “section 68”+ Section 43clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,349Mumbai3,071Bangalore1,175Chennai804Ahmedabad795Kolkata711Karnataka665Jaipur635Hyderabad591Chandigarh374Indore354Pune315Surat292Cochin252Raipur198Rajkot143Visakhapatnam138Agra110Cuttack106Lucknow103Nagpur101Telangana97Guwahati82Amritsar66Calcutta65Jabalpur64Ranchi62Allahabad60SC58Patna45Jodhpur38Dehradun26Varanasi19Rajasthan11Orissa9Kerala7Panaji4Uttarakhand3Andhra Pradesh2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 25064Section 201(1)40Section 14A38Section 153C36Section 271C30Addition to Income29Limitation/Time-bar21Section 20120Section 143(3)19Section 132

SRI.NIHAS BASHEER,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-3, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is rejected

ITA 156/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.R.Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 68

68 for the reason that the creditors could not be produced before the Assessing Officer. It was prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee so that the creditors could be produced before the Assessing Officer and he can prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. 4.4 The learned Departmental Representative

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ADDITIONAL JOINT DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI

ITA 792/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin

Showing 1–20 of 252 · Page 1 of 13

...
15
Disallowance13
TDS12
25 Sept 2024
AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CA
Section 115BSection 144BSection 250Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

43,520/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act in the absence of concrete finding that the provisions of said sections are attracted 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,50,44,001/- as unexplained income u/s 68

THE TRIVANDRUM EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. 43,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

ITA 863/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CA
Section 115BSection 144BSection 250Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

43,520/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act in the absence of concrete finding that the provisions of said sections are attracted 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,50,44,001/- as unexplained income u/s 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

68 of the Act is justified. This ground of appeal of the assessee is rejected. 11. The next ground is with regard to addition of Rs.2,45,198/- as agricultural income as undisclosed income. 11.1 The facts are that assessee claimed Rs.2,45,198/- as agricultural income. The Assessing Officer relied on Part-IV of the Finance Act which elaborates

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 61/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

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

Section 14A

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section

M/S ASPINWALL & CO.,LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 128/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

Section 14A

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.ASPINWALL & CO. LTD, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 133/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2012-13

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

Section 14A

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section

ASPINWALL & COMPANY LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result,the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 60/COCH/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2020AY 2006-07

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

Section 14A

68,481/-. Since assessee had huge interest bearing funds and investments were made in the mutual funds of sister concerns from where tax dividend was also earned, the I.T.A. Nos. 60&61/Coch/2015 & 128 & 133/Coch/2017 Assessing Officer disallowed interest amounting to Rs.18,43,500/- under section

M/S.MUKKAM MEGA MULTIPURPOSE CO-OP SOCEITY LTD,KOZHIKKODE vs. THE ITO, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the stay petition is dismissed

ITA 952/COCH/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Johnson George, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 80Section 80ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

43,17,817 /- of total income- 2. To Waive the tax and interest of Rs 18,51,990/- 3. To admit any other grounds which may arise at the time of hearing the appeals.” 3. The assessee is a co-operative society with the main object of providing credit facilities to its members. The assessee filed the return of income

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 697/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 132Section 143(3)Section 148

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 695/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 132Section 143(3)Section 148

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 736/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 735/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. ALLEBASI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS (P) LTD, ATTINGAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection stand dismissed

ITA 317/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 13. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 14. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KERALA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 732/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 700/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KERALA vs. VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 733/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 132Section 143(3)Section 148

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

VRINDAVAN BHAVAN PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 699/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT KTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 696/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

VRINDAVAN BUILDERS PVT LTD,NAGALAND vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2012-13 to 2017-18 are allowed and the appeals filed by Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 to 2017-18 are dismissed

ITA 698/COCH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging