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.

16 results for “section 68”+ Section 69Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Jaipur103 Delhi93 Mumbai71 Chandigarh43 Bangalore38 Indore38 Surat36 Pune27 Hyderabad22 Rajkot22 Chennai21 Kolkata17 Cochin16 Ahmedabad14 Amritsar13 Ranchi11 Raipur9 Jodhpur6 Lucknow5 Cuttack5 Visakhapatnam4 Guwahati3 Patna3 Nagpur3 Panaji2 Jabalpur2 Allahabad1 SC1 Kerala1 Varanasi1 Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 115B21 Section 143(3)18 Section 153A16 Section 6816 Section 26314 Addition to Income11 Section 69A9 Limitation/Time-bar9 Section 1477 Section 144

SRI.P.V.RAVINDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 302/COCH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

68, section 69, section 69A. section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

SHRI.P.V. RAVEENDRAN,KANNUR vs. THE ITO, KANNUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

7

Natural Justice7

Unexplained Investment3

ITA 303/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri T.M. Sreedharan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 263Section 3(1)(b)Section 68

68, section 69, section 69A. section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return

M/S PAZHAYANGADI G GOLD,KANNUR vs. ITO WARD 1 & TPS, KANNUR

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2018-19 Pazhayangadi G Gold, Ito, Ward-1& Tps, Eazhome Pazhayangadi, Kannur Kannur-670303 Vs. Pan : Aaufp9485G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Arun Raj S. Adv. For Revenue : Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr (Heard In Hybrid Bench) Date Of Hearing : 25-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 68Section 69

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D for any previous

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

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D

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

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69B or section 69C or section 69D

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, section 69,section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, the income tax payable

SHAHUL HAMEED,MANANTHAVADY vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 115Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69

68 or section 69 or section 69A or section 69C or section 69D." The intention of the legislature

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

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or section 69D of the I.T Act, the income tax payable shall be charged

JAMESON ABRAHAM,KOLLAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 979/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasjameson Abraham Principal Commissioner Emmanuel Cashes Industries Of Income Tax Chepara P.O., Kottarakara Vs. Thiruvananthuparam Kollam 691520 [Pan: Afopa7312Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Sections 68 to 69D may need to be examined for their applicability. The assessee, after all, cannot be heard

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 584/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

sections in the body of assessment order. Referring to demand notices for various years, the Ld. AR has further submitted that tax rate as specified u/s 115BBE has been applied which would show that Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Sec.68 or 69 or 69A to 69D to make impugned additions. 7.9 Referring to table as extracted

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 580/COCH/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

sections in the body of assessment order. Referring to demand notices for various years, the Ld. AR has further submitted that tax rate as specified u/s 115BBE has been applied which would show that Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Sec.68 or 69 or 69A to 69D to make impugned additions. 7.9 Referring to table as extracted

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 581/COCH/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

sections in the body of assessment order. Referring to demand notices for various years, the Ld. AR has further submitted that tax rate as specified u/s 115BBE has been applied which would show that Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Sec.68 or 69 or 69A to 69D to make impugned additions. 7.9 Referring to table as extracted

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 582/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

sections in the body of assessment order. Referring to demand notices for various years, the Ld. AR has further submitted that tax rate as specified u/s 115BBE has been applied which would show that Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Sec.68 or 69 or 69A to 69D to make impugned additions. 7.9 Referring to table as extracted

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 583/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

sections in the body of assessment order. Referring to demand notices for various years, the Ld. AR has further submitted that tax rate as specified u/s 115BBE has been applied which would show that Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Sec.68 or 69 or 69A to 69D to make impugned additions. 7.9 Referring to table as extracted

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 586/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

sections in the body of assessment order. Referring to demand notices for various years, the Ld. AR has further submitted that tax rate as specified u/s 115BBE has been applied which would show that Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Sec.68 or 69 or 69A to 69D to make impugned additions. 7.9 Referring to table as extracted

M.K RAJENDRAN PILLAI,PATHANAMTHITTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 585/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

sections in the body of assessment order. Referring to demand notices for various years, the Ld. AR has further submitted that tax rate as specified u/s 115BBE has been applied which would show that Ld. AO has invoked the provisions of Sec.68 or 69 or 69A to 69D to make impugned additions. 7.9 Referring to table as extracted