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.

224 results for “section 68”+ Section 73clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,991Mumbai2,467Bangalore866Chennai654Karnataka631Ahmedabad629Kolkata585Jaipur482Hyderabad396Surat312Indore309Chandigarh280Pune240Cochin224Raipur163Visakhapatnam118Cuttack100Rajkot98Telangana87Nagpur70Lucknow65Calcutta64Jabalpur63Guwahati41SC40Jodhpur32Ranchi32Allahabad30Agra28Amritsar28Dehradun23Patna13Varanasi10Rajasthan9Orissa8Panaji3Andhra Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Gauhati1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 25081Section 80P76Section 80P(2)(a)51Disallowance26Deduction22Limitation/Time-bar20Section 80P(2)16Addition to Income14Section 201(1)12

SRI.NIHAS BASHEER,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-3, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, ground No.3 raised by the assessee is rejected

ITA 156/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Sri.R.Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 68

68 for the reason that the creditors could not be produced before the Assessing Officer. It was prayed that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee so that the creditors could be produced before the Assessing Officer and he can prove the creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transactions. 4.4 The learned Departmental Representative

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: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 224 · Page 1 of 12

...
Section 271(1)(c)11
Section 80P(4)10
Section 271C9
ITAT Cochin
19 Nov 2019
AY 2015-16

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

Section 115BSection 68

73,680/- after making the following additions: S.No. Item Amount Rs. Reason 1. Under section 68 of the 27,94,306 Unexplained

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

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

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

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

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

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

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

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

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

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

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

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

SREEVALSAM HOTELS AND RESORTS PRIVATE LTD,RAJAVALSAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 115/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

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

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 13. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 14. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

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

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. ALLEBASI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS (P) LTD, ATTINGAL

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection stand dismissed

ITA 317/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

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 13. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 14. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

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

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

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

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

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

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

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

68 of the Act. Since the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction are proved, not addition is required to be made. 15. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR seriously opposed the above submissions. 16. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Now we shall take up ground of appeal No. 1 challenging

THE ITO, WD-1(1), KOCHI vs. SHRI.P.V.ABRAHAM, KOCHI

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

ITA 508/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

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

Section 91

73,185/- Total source available Rs. 19,35,502/- Unexplained Income Rs.1,54,86,598/- . 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the facts of the instant case are squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT, Cochin Bench in the case of ITO vs. Abraham Varghese Cheruvil (2017) Taxcorp

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. ARUN RAJ PILLAI, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee company stands allowed

ITA 314/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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)

68 of the I.T. Act, the authorities below had also rejected the explanation given by the assessee that the amounts received by him were by way of loan from persons in Nagaland. Based on its earlier finding that the Revenue had not established that the bank accounts held by the other family members and group concerns actually belong

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLLAM vs. MONEYMUTTAM FINANCE, PATHANAMTHITTA

In the result, assessee’s cross objection stands allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 315/COCH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

68 of the I.T. Act, the authorities below had also rejected the explanation given by the assessee that the amounts received by him were by way of loan from persons in Nagaland. Based on its earlier finding that the Revenue had not established that the bank accounts held by the other family members and group concerns actually belong

V GUARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED,VENNALA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 63/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

Section 115JB has not been considered by the AO, which is a mistake prejudicial to the interest of revenue.’ That is, non-consideration of certain claims of expenditure for computation of book-profit. The assessee, in reply, admits to the said deficiency, though claims that it would be of no consequence as the tax liability u/s. 115JB, even after

THE ITO,WD-2(5), THRISSUR vs. M/S.THIROOR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD, THRISSUR

ITA 433/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Sri.M.Ramdas, FCA
Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

section 80P(2) (a) (i) of the Income-tax Act,1961 without perceiving the difference in definition of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society in the two Acts. 5. The Full Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in ITA Nos.97, 135 of 2016, 3, 11, 12, 22, 25, 26, 32, 33, 55, 68, 69, 72, 73