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.

245 results for “section 68”+ Section 58clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,465Mumbai2,832Bangalore1,008Chennai707Karnataka653Ahmedabad642Kolkata625Jaipur548Hyderabad534Indore326Chandigarh283Pune264Cochin245Surat210Raipur195Visakhapatnam125Rajkot111Agra107Cuttack97Telangana91Lucknow91Calcutta65Jabalpur64Nagpur63Allahabad61SC44Ranchi36Guwahati33Panaji32Amritsar32Jodhpur25Dehradun25Varanasi17Patna16Rajasthan8Orissa7Uttarakhand3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Andhra Pradesh1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 25075Section 153A42Section 201(1)36Addition to Income31Section 153C28Section 271C27Section 143(3)24Section 20118Section 13218Search & Seizure

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 312/COCH/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

section leaves no doubt that the addition u/s 68 has to be made in the hands of the assessee in whose books the credits appear and not in the hands of the creditor of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) in deciding that unexplained credits brought into the books of the firm by the partners need to considered

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, TRICHUR

Showing 1–20 of 245 · Page 1 of 13

...
12
Cash Deposit12
Penalty10

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

ITA 316/COCH/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

section leaves no doubt that the addition u/s 68 has to be made in the hands of the assessee in whose books the credits appear and not in the hands of the creditor of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) in deciding that unexplained credits brought into the books of the firm by the partners need to considered

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, TRICHUR

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

ITA 314/COCH/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

section leaves no doubt that the addition u/s 68 has to be made in the hands of the assessee in whose books the credits appear and not in the hands of the creditor of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) in deciding that unexplained credits brought into the books of the firm by the partners need to considered

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, KOCHI, KOCHI vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, TRICHUR

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

ITA 315/COCH/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

section leaves no doubt that the addition u/s 68 has to be made in the hands of the assessee in whose books the credits appear and not in the hands of the creditor of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) in deciding that unexplained credits brought into the books of the firm by the partners need to considered

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL, TRICHUR, TRICHUR

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

ITA 311/COCH/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

section leaves no doubt that the addition u/s 68 has to be made in the hands of the assessee in whose books the credits appear and not in the hands of the creditor of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) in deciding that unexplained credits brought into the books of the firm by the partners need to considered

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, THRISSUR

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

ITA 310/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

section leaves no doubt that the addition u/s 68 has to be made in the hands of the assessee in whose books the credits appear and not in the hands of the creditor of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) in deciding that unexplained credits brought into the books of the firm by the partners need to considered

THE ACIT, CEN-CIRCLE-2, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S.THOMSON AGENCIES, TRICHUR

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

ITA 313/COCH/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri. Sathish John Kanichai, FCA
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

section leaves no doubt that the addition u/s 68 has to be made in the hands of the assessee in whose books the credits appear and not in the hands of the creditor of the assessee. 2. The CIT(A) in deciding that unexplained credits brought into the books of the firm by the partners need to considered

POTTOLIL AGRO MILLS,PERUMBAVOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALUVA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 664/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 2(1)(a)Section 250Section 3Section 69A

58,99,000/-. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) uphold the impugned assessment order. Being aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacturing and sale of agro-products, primarily rice. During the demonetization period

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)

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(1) of the Income Tax Rules. 5) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought

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

58,53,000/-. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed by the CIT(A). 7. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of CIT(A), which is against the assessee, the assessee company is in appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No. 696/Coch/2024 and being aggrieved by that part of order of CIT(A) which

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

58,53,000/-. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed by the CIT(A). 7. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of CIT(A), which is against the assessee, the assessee company is in appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No. 696/Coch/2024 and being aggrieved by that part of order of CIT(A) which

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

58,53,000/-. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed by the CIT(A). 7. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of CIT(A), which is against the assessee, the assessee company is in appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No. 696/Coch/2024 and being aggrieved by that part of order of CIT(A) which

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

58,53,000/-. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed by the CIT(A). 7. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of CIT(A), which is against the assessee, the assessee company is in appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No. 696/Coch/2024 and being aggrieved by that part of order of CIT(A) which

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

58,53,000/-. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed by the CIT(A). 7. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of CIT(A), which is against the assessee, the assessee company is in appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No. 696/Coch/2024 and being aggrieved by that part of order of CIT(A) which

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 734/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

58,53,000/-. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed by the CIT(A). 7. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of CIT(A), which is against the assessee, the assessee company is in appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No. 696/Coch/2024 and being aggrieved by that part of order of CIT(A) which

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

58,53,000/-. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed by the CIT(A). 7. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of CIT(A), which is against the assessee, the assessee company is in appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No. 696/Coch/2024 and being aggrieved by that part of order of CIT(A) which

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

58,53,000/-. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed by the CIT(A). 7. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of CIT(A), which is against the assessee, the assessee company is in appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No. 696/Coch/2024 and being aggrieved by that part of order of CIT(A) which

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

58,53,000/-. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed by the CIT(A). 7. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of CIT(A), which is against the assessee, the assessee company is in appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No. 696/Coch/2024 and being aggrieved by that part of order of CIT(A) which

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

58,53,000/-. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed by the CIT(A). 7. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of CIT(A), which is against the assessee, the assessee company is in appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No. 696/Coch/2024 and being aggrieved by that part of order of CIT(A) which

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

58,53,000/-. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed by the CIT(A). 7. Being aggrieved by that part of the order of CIT(A), which is against the assessee, the assessee company is in appeal before this Tribunal in ITA No. 696/Coch/2024 and being aggrieved by that part of order of CIT(A) which