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.

6 results for “section 68”+ Section 46Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi782Mumbai484Ahmedabad158Kolkata152Hyderabad132Chennai109Jaipur94Bangalore92Indore87Chandigarh59Pune57Surat57Raipur49Amritsar47Rajkot41Guwahati34Visakhapatnam32Allahabad25Cuttack25Lucknow24Nagpur19Agra16Patna10Dehradun8Ranchi8Jodhpur7Cochin6Jabalpur5Varanasi5Telangana3SC2Calcutta2Gauhati1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)8Addition to Income6Section 685Section 69A4Section 1443Reassessment3Section 143(2)2Section 80P2Section 80P(2)(d)2Section 263

KERALA GAZETTED OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. T-424,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 203/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhkerala Gazetted Officers The Income Tax Officer Co-Op. Society Ltd. Ward - 2(1), Trivandrum Vazhuthakkdu, Thycaud Post Vs. Trivandrum 695014 [Pan: Aacak6865C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. KrishnanFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 46ASection 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

section 68 of the Income Tax Act as unexplained credits without going into the merits of the case. 4) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in rejecting the submissions made by the appellant as additional evidence, no admissible and violative of Rule 46A

2
Unexplained Cash Credit2
Unexplained Money2

SRI.E.UMMER BAVA,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ACIT, TIRUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 356/COCH/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

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

Section 143(3)

Section 68 of the Act requires an assessee to prove the credits appearing in his books of account, as to the nature and source of such amounts, so that if the explanation furnished is not satisfactory, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee’s income. The assessee is required to prove three important conditions namely

M/S KERALA AUTOMOBILES LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 176/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Kerala Automobiles Ltd. Asst. Cit, Aralumoodu P.O., Neyattinkara Circle 1(1), Vs. Trivandurm 695123 Trivandrum [Pan:Aabck0142M] (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Anand George Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 251Section 68

68 of the Act, on which tax, in terms of sec.115 BBE of the Act, was levied. In appeal, filed at a delay of 121 days, the assessee questioned the appropriateness of considering the sums duly reflected in it’s audited financial statements as loans from the GoK and Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. (KMML), another PSU, a substantial part

UNNIKRISHNAN. K,KUNNAMPALLY vs. THE ITO WARD 2, TIRUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed on the aforesaid terms, and his stay petition dismissed

ITA 955/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Dr. Seethalakshmi

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148(1)

section 143(3) r/w s.147 r/w s.254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 19.10.2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment for the relevant year was in the first instance made on 10/3/2014 at Rs. 2,07,10,622, by including the following incomes

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 TPS, ALUVA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ALUVA vs. CIJO JOSEPH, ANGAMALY

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 604/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69A

section 69A of the Act applies only where the amount is not recorded in the books, therefore learned CIT(A) viewed that the addition was not sustainable. I.T.A. Nos.604&608/COCH/2024 Cijo Joseph 6. On the issue of the capital introduction of Rs. 16,60,478, the assessee explained that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000 – Drawn from partnership

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 TPS, ALUVA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, ALUVA vs. CIJO JOSEPH, ANGAMALY

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 608/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69A

section 69A of the Act applies only where the amount is not recorded in the books, therefore learned CIT(A) viewed that the addition was not sustainable. I.T.A. Nos.604&608/COCH/2024 Cijo Joseph 6. On the issue of the capital introduction of Rs. 16,60,478, the assessee explained that the amount of Rs. 10,00,000 – Drawn from partnership