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.

227 results for “section 68”+ Section 56clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,649 Mumbai2,864 Bangalore1,090 Chennai825 Ahmedabad737 Karnataka652 Kolkata647 Jaipur615 Hyderabad581 Indore344 Pune340 Chandigarh299 Surat250 Cochin227 Raipur139 Visakhapatnam111 Agra107 Lucknow104 Rajkot98 Cuttack97 Nagpur93 Telangana88 Calcutta74 Jabalpur64 Amritsar63 Jodhpur53 Guwahati50 Allahabad50 SC46 Panaji37 Dehradun28 Patna25 Ranchi23 Varanasi18 Rajasthan9 Kerala8 Orissa7 Uttarakhand3 Andhra Pradesh1 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 25079 Section 80P29 Addition to Income28 Limitation/Time-bar26 Section 13216 Deduction16 Exemption16 Disallowance13 Section 4012 Section 80P(2)(a)

M/S.SAHYADRI AGENCIES LTD,KANDNASSERY, THRISSUR vs. THE ITO, WD-1(3), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 439/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sri.Bomi Daruwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

section 56(2)(viib) or 68. This issue is also be examined.” 5. In response to the notice issued

Showing 1–20 of 227 · Page 1 of 12

...

12

Section 143(3)12

BHIMA JEWELLERS,SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD vs. THE PR CIT, KOZHIKKODE, KOZHIKKODE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 208/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No.208/Coch/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Bhima Jewellers, Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income- 6/785 Ai, Tax, Kozhikode. Mysore Road, Chungum Junction, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad-673 592. [Pan: Aakfb 9817C] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Revenue By Shri Dhanaraj A. Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing 05/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 20/08/2018

Section 115BSection 14Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

68 cannot be assessed as income from other sources under section 56. 15. Thus what is taxed under Chapter

VILAVATTAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 337,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 336/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None ------

Section 148Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 56Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

68 taxmann.com 298 (Ker.) having decided the very issue in assessee’s favour. Ordered accordingly. Vilvattam Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 5. The Revenue’s next vehement contentions seeks to treat the assessee as a cooperative bank u/sec.80P(2)(4) than a credit cooperative society as per Pr. CIT vs. Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank

VILAVATTAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD NO 337,THRISSUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 337/COCH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: ------- None ------

Section 148Section 2Section 22Section 250Section 56Section 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

68 taxmann.com 298 (Ker.) having decided the very issue in assessee’s favour. Ordered accordingly. Vilvattam Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. 5. The Revenue’s next vehement contentions seeks to treat the assessee as a cooperative bank u/sec.80P(2)(4) than a credit cooperative society as per Pr. CIT vs. Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank

RAMAPURAM NORTH AISWARYA PRADAYINI SCB LTD ,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO WARD 3, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeals filed by the appellant are allowed and the order(s) of the Kerala High Court and other authorities to the contrary are set aside

ITA 556/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year 2017-18 Ramapuram North Aiswarya Pradayini Scb Ltd. Ramapuram North, The Income Tax Officer Vs. Keerikadu P.O., Alappuzha Ward - 3, Pin - 690508 Alappuzha Pan Aacar2023D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

68 taxmann.com 298 (Ker.) These Revenue’s contentions rejected accordingly. 3 Ramapuram North Aiswarya Pradayini SCB Ltd. 4. Learned DR’s next case is that assessee had violated the corresponding norms by not having extended credit facility by way of agricultural loans to the eligible members. We find that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank

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

56, there is no scope for invocation of section 69A by the AO, which provision – reading out the same, is only where the cash under reference is not recorded in the assessee’s accounts and, further, fails to offer any explanation in this respect. Implicit therein, it is argued, is the notion that the assessee does not admit

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

56, there is no scope for invocation of section 69A by the AO, which provision – reading out the same, is only where the cash under reference is not recorded in the assessee’s accounts and, further, fails to offer any explanation in this respect. Implicit therein, it is argued, is the notion that the assessee does not admit

THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 47/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

68,89,029/- rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 80P(2) of the Act while treating the same as income from other sources. According to the AO the said amount of interest is liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources since the assessee-Society has invested the surplus fund as an ordinary investor. According

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 141/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

68,89,029/- rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 80P(2) of the Act while treating the same as income from other sources. According to the AO the said amount of interest is liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources since the assessee-Society has invested the surplus fund as an ordinary investor. According

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 400/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

68,89,029/- rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 80P(2) of the Act while treating the same as income from other sources. According to the AO the said amount of interest is liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources since the assessee-Society has invested the surplus fund as an ordinary investor. According

M/S.PEROORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, WD-2(1), TRIVANDRUM, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 93/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

68,89,029/- rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 80P(2) of the Act while treating the same as income from other sources. According to the AO the said amount of interest is liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources since the assessee-Society has invested the surplus fund as an ordinary investor. According

M/S.PERRORKADA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ITO, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I

ITA 563/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 143(3)Section 194A(3)(viia)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 80P

68,89,029/- rejecting the claim of deduction made u/s. 80P(2) of the Act while treating the same as income from other sources. According to the AO the said amount of interest is liable to be taxed under the head income from other sources since the assessee-Society has invested the surplus fund as an ordinary investor. According

M/S. HEERA KERALA DEVELOPERS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE ACIT,CIR-1(1), TRIVANDRUM

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

ITA 243/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Heera Kerala Developers Acit - Circle 1(1) Pvt. Ltd. Thiruvananthapurm Tc 15/1553(5), Heera Park Vs. Mp Appan Road, Vazhuthacaud Thiruvananthapurm 695014 Pan – Aabch8810R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 68o

56,000/- from M/s. J.M. Financial Trustee Company Pvt. Ltd. through issue of secured debentures. The assessee was required to prove the ingredients as per Section 68ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"). The assessee was unable to prove the ingredients as per Section 68

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 803/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

68,214/- as income from other sources and consequently denied deduction u/s 80P of the Act on this amount. The assesse filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)/NFAC, held that the assesse is eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act on the business income but the action of the AO in denial of section

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 805/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

68,214/- as income from other sources and consequently denied deduction u/s 80P of the Act on this amount. The assesse filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)/NFAC, held that the assesse is eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act on the business income but the action of the AO in denial of section

THE KUNDARA PANCHAYATH SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD,KOLLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KOLLAM

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 802/COCH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri G.Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 80PSection 8O

68,214/- as income from other sources and consequently denied deduction u/s 80P of the Act on this amount. The assesse filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A)/NFAC, held that the assesse is eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the Act on the business income but the action of the AO in denial of section

SUPRIYA ENTERPRISES,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO, TIRUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 301/COCH/2020[2015-16 ]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S. Supriya Enterprises Principal Commissioner Of 16,263, Calicut Road Income Tax Vs. Manjeri, Malappuram 676121 Kozhikode

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Poulose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68

Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. We first of all note that PCIT’s impugned revision directions read as follows: - “1. The assessee filed the Return of Income for A.Y 2015-16 on 24-03-2017 admitting a total income

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

ITA 222/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

68 or 69 since the same was not made based on the seized materials. We have perused the records but nowhere we found that there is a correlation between the addition and the seized materials. Therefore, we find some force in the argument of the learned A.R. that the addition cannot be sustained in view of the non-linking

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

ITA 223/COCH/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

68 or 69 since the same was not made based on the seized materials. We have perused the records but nowhere we found that there is a correlation between the addition and the seized materials. Therefore, we find some force in the argument of the learned A.R. that the addition cannot be sustained in view of the non-linking

SANTHIMADAM AGROFARM TRUST,KOCHI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, KOCHI

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

ITA 221/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Aug 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 194CSection 234ASection 40Section 68Section 69

68 or 69 since the same was not made based on the seized materials. We have perused the records but nowhere we found that there is a correlation between the addition and the seized materials. Therefore, we find some force in the argument of the learned A.R. that the addition cannot be sustained in view of the non-linking