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.

254 results for “section 68”+ Section 48clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,781Mumbai3,095Bangalore1,158Chennai717Ahmedabad688Karnataka665Jaipur653Kolkata619Hyderabad574Indore336Chandigarh324Pune306Surat267Cochin254Raipur191Visakhapatnam170Rajkot127Telangana103Lucknow88Cuttack84Nagpur78Jabalpur66Calcutta65Allahabad60Amritsar59SC58Guwahati50Agra44Ranchi43Jodhpur43Patna38Panaji31Dehradun24Varanasi17Rajasthan12Orissa10Kerala7Uttarakhand4Punjab & Haryana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 25083Section 201(1)36Section 271C27Limitation/Time-bar24Addition to Income19Section 20118Section 153A17Penalty10Section 143(3)9Section 194J

SRI.THOMAS EAPEN,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-5, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 451/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

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

Section 115BSection 68

section 68 of the 27,94,306 Unexplained cash deposit in Act Bank 2. Undisclosed profit 3,14,953 Profit on undisclosed sales 3. Interest income 27,265 Difference as per 26AS On examination of the bank account statements of the assessee at various banks, it was ascertained that total of credits in different banks during the year

M/S.KADUNA HOSPITALITY P. LTD,COCHIN vs. THE ITO, COCHIN

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

ITA 500/COCH/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Showing 1–20 of 254 · Page 1 of 13

...
9
TDS9
Section 407

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 145ASection 45Section 45(5)(b)Section 48

68,157/- was different from that of solatium of Rs. 41,31.979/- and interest of Rs. 1,09,03,339/- (aggregating to Rs. 1,50,35,318/-) and therefore only the solatium and interest could be taxed as per the provisions of section 45(5)(b) read with section 145A(b) in the AY 2013-14 and compensation

SRI.ANWARSADATH,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 456/COCH/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 147Section 68

68 of the Act and is so assessed.” 4.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2004-05, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,90,709/- on account of unexplained credits in the capital and chitty installments. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer reads as follows: “4. As regards to the source of capital introduced during the year over

SRI.ANWARSADATH,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-1, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 457/COCH/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri George George K.

Section 147Section 68

68 of the Act and is so assessed.” 4.1 Similarly, for the assessment year 2004-05, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,90,709/- on account of unexplained credits in the capital and chitty installments. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer reads as follows: “4. As regards to the source of capital introduced during the year over

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

48 lakhs. Since the assessee had already declared a total income of Rs.14,32,460/-, the assessee was asked to explain the discrepancy. In response, the assessee submitted that the Promoter Director had only mentioned the approximate amount of profit and not the profit after finalization of the accounts, which was declared by the assessee in the original return

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

48, the full value of the consideration on transfer shall deemed to be the amount recorded in the books of the firm. Accordingly, it was submitted that Long Term Capital gains of Rs 20,27,017/- was computed and declared in the return filed under section 139 of the Act. The computation is as under: Full value of consideration

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

48, the full value of the consideration on transfer shall deemed to be the amount recorded in the books of the firm. Accordingly, it was submitted that Long Term Capital gains of Rs 20,27,017/- was computed and declared in the return filed under section 139 of the Act. The computation is as under: Full value of consideration

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

48, the full value of the consideration on transfer shall deemed to be the amount recorded in the books of the firm. Accordingly, it was submitted that Long Term Capital gains of Rs 20,27,017/- was computed and declared in the return filed under section 139 of the Act. The computation is as under: Full value of consideration

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

48, the full value of the consideration on transfer shall deemed to be the amount recorded in the books of the firm. Accordingly, it was submitted that Long Term Capital gains of Rs 20,27,017/- was computed and declared in the return filed under section 139 of the Act. The computation is as under: Full value of consideration

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

48, the full value of the consideration on transfer shall deemed to be the amount recorded in the books of the firm. Accordingly, it was submitted that Long Term Capital gains of Rs 20,27,017/- was computed and declared in the return filed under section 139 of the Act. The computation is as under: Full value of consideration

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

48, the full value of the consideration on transfer shall deemed to be the amount recorded in the books of the firm. Accordingly, it was submitted that Long Term Capital gains of Rs 20,27,017/- was computed and declared in the return filed under section 139 of the Act. The computation is as under: Full value of consideration

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

48, the full value of the consideration on transfer shall deemed to be the amount recorded in the books of the firm. Accordingly, it was submitted that Long Term Capital gains of Rs 20,27,017/- was computed and declared in the return filed under section 139 of the Act. The computation is as under: Full value of consideration

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

48, the full value of the consideration on transfer shall deemed to be the amount recorded in the books of the firm. Accordingly, it was submitted that Long Term Capital gains of Rs 20,27,017/- was computed and declared in the return filed under section 139 of the Act. The computation is as under: Full value of consideration

SRI.GEORGE M.GEORGE,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 396/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.R.SreenivasanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68. 2. The officers below failed to appreciate the fact that the income earned by the appellant was agriculture and will tantamount to income by overriding title. 3. The officers below failed to appreciate the fact if the appellant is not entitled to the agriculture income, the same should have been taxed in the hands

SRI.GEORGE M.GEORGE,KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 172/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sri.R.SreenivasanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 68 of the I.T.Act. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer reads as follows:- “6. In short, the agricultural income of the assessee for the above year is NIL and the claim is totally disallowed. Accordingly assessee’s claim of Rs.12,36,000/- from income from agriculture is brought to assessment as unexplained cash credits 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

SRI.C.V.JOBY,PALAKKAD vs. THE ITO, PALAKKAD

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

ITA 689/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Padmanathan K.V., CAFor Respondent: Sri. Santhom Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T.Act, there would not be any additional tax liability since assessee is having loss 2 Sri.C V Joby. from “income from house property” amounting to Rs.68,48,754. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: For the assessment year 2014-2015, the return of income was filed on 04.10.2014. The assessment

V S ABDUL SALAM,ERNAKULAM vs. THE ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4) & TPS, KOCHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 611/COCH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri Alan Dev, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sanjit Kumar Das, D.R
Section 250Section 69

48,250/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and the issue identified is 'Large investment in property compared to total income'. The issue flagged by CASS scrutiny relates to a purchase of land to the extent of 10.118 acres with a shed in Sy. No. B-1 119/6 and B-l250/27 for a consideration of Rs.87.90

THE DCIT, COCHIN vs. M/S.FRIDGEHOUSE RETAIL P. LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.ARFor Respondent: Sri.K.Sankaranarayanan, CA
Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Income Tax Act as the explanation offered by assessee company is not satisfactory.” The ld. CIT(A), in first appeal, examined the matter at length. All that the AO was, in his view, required to do was to see whether there had been a revaluation of assets and liabilities taken-over, or otherwise any adjustment

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

48,828/-. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that "the Id. representative very fairly submitted that the assessee could not explain the source for making these deposits". Despite that, it is seen argued before the Tribunal that the income was from real estate business and, therefore, only the net amount should be taken and not the gross amount. I.T.A