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.

607 results for “section 68”+ Section 7clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi10,216Mumbai8,820Kolkata2,772Bangalore2,521Ahmedabad2,072Chennai1,984Jaipur1,461Hyderabad1,360Pune1,270Surat900Chandigarh858Indore797Karnataka789Cochin607Raipur457Rajkot453Visakhapatnam411Nagpur282Lucknow267Amritsar256Agra238Cuttack231Guwahati209Telangana157Jodhpur135Patna135Ranchi132SC118Jabalpur115Calcutta103Allahabad101Panaji97Dehradun94Varanasi48Rajasthan22Orissa13Kerala13A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN5Uttarakhand4Punjab & Haryana3Gauhati3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Himachal Pradesh1Tripura1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Limitation/Time-bar60TDS30Addition to Income26Section 25022Section 6821Section 143(3)20Section 115B19Section 26318Section 153A18Section 144

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

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

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 / 69 of the IT Act, 1961 4. Without prejudice to the above there is no justification to assess the income from business declared by the appellant invoking section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 5. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have found that the income declared pursuant .to survey conducted in the appellant

Showing 1–20 of 607 · Page 1 of 31

...
13
Section 234E12
Deduction11

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 / 69 of the IT Act, 1961 4. Without prejudice to the above there is no justification to assess the income from business declared by the appellant invoking section 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961. 5. The learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have found that the income declared pursuant .to survey conducted in the appellant

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

7 Provided that no penalty shall be levied in respect of income referred to in section 68, section

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

section 68. Once it was so done for the purpose of set off or any other purpose, the unexplained income could not 7

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

7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [PAN:ARJPC0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing: 23.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 15.04.2024 Sravan Kumar Neela Asst. CIT, Central Circle -1, 19-380, Reddy Colony, Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Near Sai Teja Apartments, Kozhikode 673001 vs. Miryalaguda, Nalgonda, Telangana 508207 [PAN:CPNPK7453K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Date

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

7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [PAN:ARJPC0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Date of Hearing: 23.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 15.04.2024 Sravan Kumar Neela Asst. CIT, Central Circle -1, 19-380, Reddy Colony, Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Near Sai Teja Apartments, Kozhikode 673001 vs. Miryalaguda, Nalgonda, Telangana 508207 [PAN:CPNPK7453K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Date

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

68. This issue is also be examined. " Re: Appellant's submissions: I. In limited scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer has to restrict himself to issues raised in limited scrutiny and cannot make any additions on other issues. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decisions mentioned in Annexure A, wherein it has been held that in a case selected

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

section 68. Therefore, it has to be held that, as on the relevant date of the assessment, there was no bar existed 7

SREEPATHY TRUST,THRISSUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRLE 1(1) , THRISSUR

In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 66/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No. 65/Coch/2024 stands dismissed. 7. ITA No. 66/Coch/2024 – This

SREEPATHY TRUST,THRISSUR vs. CIT, CIRCLE 1, THRISSUR

In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 65/COCH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Snr AR
Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No. 65/Coch/2024 stands dismissed. 7. ITA No. 66/Coch/2024 – This

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

section 80P of the Act on account of addition u/s. 68 of the Act. This ground of appeals of the assessee is dismissed. 9.8 The assessee has also submitted that the assessment was not made within the time specified u/s. 153 as the assessment order was served on 03/01/2017. However there is no ground raised by the assessee relating

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

section 80P of the Act on account of addition u/s. 68 of the Act. This ground of appeals of the assessee is dismissed. 9.8 The assessee has also submitted that the assessment was not made within the time specified u/s. 153 as the assessment order was served on 03/01/2017. However there is no ground raised by the assessee relating

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

section 80P of the Act on account of addition u/s. 68 of the Act. This ground of appeals of the assessee is dismissed. 9.8 The assessee has also submitted that the assessment was not made within the time specified u/s. 153 as the assessment order was served on 03/01/2017. However there is no ground raised by the assessee relating

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

section 80P of the Act on account of addition u/s. 68 of the Act. This ground of appeals of the assessee is dismissed. 9.8 The assessee has also submitted that the assessment was not made within the time specified u/s. 153 as the assessment order was served on 03/01/2017. However there is no ground raised by the assessee relating

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

section 80P of the Act on account of addition u/s. 68 of the Act. This ground of appeals of the assessee is dismissed. 9.8 The assessee has also submitted that the assessment was not made within the time specified u/s. 153 as the assessment order was served on 03/01/2017. However there is no ground raised by the assessee relating

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

68 of the Act to the tune of Rs.71,66,000/- which has been set off from the returned loss of Rs.53,25,931/-. The order of the learned PCIT has been passed on 30.01.2019 for exercising his power under Section 263 of the Act. The CBDT has issued circular in regard to setting off of loss against deemed

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

7 I.T.A. No. 451/Coch/2019 section 44AD and computed the income declared by the assessee at Rs.3,37,160/- and thereafter made addition towards undisclosed profit u/s. 68

INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-, KOTTAYAM vs. PUTHENKUDY PAULOSE BABU, KOTTAYAM

The appeal is allowed

ITA 775/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

section 68 of the Act. In the appellate order, in page No. 7, para (v). the Id. CIT(A) has noted

E T DEVASSY AND SONS FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,THRISSUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE 1(1)& TPS, THRISSUR

ITA 536/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Assessing Officer who partly agreed but disagreed finally with the same and made addition in the quantum

For Appellant: Shri Hiran C, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 42Section 68Section 69Section 69A

Section 68 of the Act without confronting the Assessee regarding the applicability of the same to the facts of the present case. 7

THE ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. M/S. THOMSON METALS, TRICHUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 124/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 153CSection 68

7 M/s.Thomson Metals. logic of section 68 which is to tax bogus credits in the hands of the assessee