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.

125 results for “section 68”+ Section 85clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,034Mumbai2,328Bangalore820Ahmedabad617Karnataka592Chennai567Kolkata473Jaipur455Hyderabad382Indore292Chandigarh287Pune245Surat157Cochin125Visakhapatnam114Rajkot105Agra95Raipur88Cuttack84Telangana81Guwahati65Lucknow63Calcutta59Nagpur55Amritsar46Ranchi45Allahabad42Jodhpur40Patna29SC29Dehradun22Jabalpur11Rajasthan8Orissa6Panaji2Varanasi2Kerala2Andhra Pradesh1Gauhati1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Tripura1

Key Topics

Section 25099Section 153A48Section 14A44Section 143(3)21Section 6820Addition to Income18Section 142(1)16Section 26313Section 15410Deduction

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 of Rs. 2,85

Showing 1–20 of 125 · Page 1 of 7

9
Capital Gains8
Disallowance8

SRI.GEORGE M.GEORGE,KOZHENCHERRY vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 396/COCH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sri.R.SreenivasanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68. 2. The officers below failed to appreciate the fact that the income earned by the appellant was agriculture and will tantamount to income by overriding title. 3. The officers below failed to appreciate the fact if the appellant is not entitled to the agriculture income, the same should have been taxed in the hands

SRI.GEORGE M.GEORGE,KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA vs. THE ACIT, CIR-1, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 172/COCH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sri.R.SreenivasanFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

section 68 of the I.T.Act. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer reads as follows:- “6. In short, the agricultural income of the assessee for the above year is NIL and the claim is totally disallowed. Accordingly assessee’s claim of Rs.12,36,000/- from income from agriculture is brought to assessment as unexplained cash credits u/s 68

SMT. MARIAMMA JOHN,KOTTAYAM vs. THE ITO< WD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 101/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 68

section 68 wherein it was stated that where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year and assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him/her was not satisfactory in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, the sum so credited may be charged

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. KILLI CONSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue, the appeal filed by the

ITA 298/COCH/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

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

Section 68

section 68 for the following reasons, 1. The appellant has taken two different stands i.e. the one during the course of reassessment proceedings stating that it was a loan availed and another one during the course of appeal hearing stating the same as paid towards allotment of 1000 sq. ft. space in the “Killi Towers” to be constructed

M/S.KILLI CONSTRUCTIONS,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue, the appeal filed by the

ITA 369/COCH/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

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

Section 68

section 68 for the following reasons, 1. The appellant has taken two different stands i.e. the one during the course of reassessment proceedings stating that it was a loan availed and another one during the course of appeal hearing stating the same as paid towards allotment of 1000 sq. ft. space in the “Killi Towers” to be constructed

THE ACIT, TRIVANDRUM vs. M/S. KILLI CONSTRUCTIONS, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue, the appeal filed by the

ITA 299/COCH/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

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

Section 68

section 68 for the following reasons, 1. The appellant has taken two different stands i.e. the one during the course of reassessment proceedings stating that it was a loan availed and another one during the course of appeal hearing stating the same as paid towards allotment of 1000 sq. ft. space in the “Killi Towers” to be constructed

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 76/COCH/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE JT DIRECTOR OF IT (OSD) EXEM), COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 75/COCH/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

INFOPARKS KERALA,COCHIN vs. THE ACIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

ITA 77/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Rajakannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15). However, the Court does not rule out any future claim made and being independently assessed, if GS1 is able to satisfy that what it provides to its customers is charged on cost-basis with at the most, a nominal mark-up. The foregoing neatly sums up the adjudication qua entities as the assessee, which is accordingly

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL ,KAKKANAD vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 91/COCH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

85% with a condition of keeping such surplus in the specified mode as per section 11(5) of the Act. This is to be done after giving notice to the AO by the assessee in Form No.10 of the Income Tax Rules. The issue, in the instance case is whether at the first stage of accumulation of 15% surplus

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL.,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 90/COCH/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

85% with a condition of keeping such surplus in the specified mode as per section 11(5) of the Act. This is to be done after giving notice to the AO by the assessee in Form No.10 of the Income Tax Rules. The issue, in the instance case is whether at the first stage of accumulation of 15% surplus

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, KOCHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 89/COCH/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

85% with a condition of keeping such surplus in the specified mode as per section 11(5) of the Act. This is to be done after giving notice to the AO by the assessee in Form No.10 of the Income Tax Rules. The issue, in the instance case is whether at the first stage of accumulation of 15% surplus

JUBILEE MISSION HOSPITAL,THRISSUR vs. THE DCIT, THRISSUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 88/COCH/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148

85% with a condition of keeping such surplus in the specified mode as per section 11(5) of the Act. This is to be done after giving notice to the AO by the assessee in Form No.10 of the Income Tax Rules. The issue, in the instance case is whether at the first stage of accumulation of 15% surplus

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 409/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

section 250 of the act, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has wrongly mentioned the addition figure as ₹ 1, 61,41,520/- as against the actual figure of ₹ 53,85,753/- 9. The ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the order of the ld. CIT (A)/NFAC. 10. On going through the orders of the AO as well

THRISSUR DISTRICT POLICE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THRISSUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 408/COCH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri M.Ramdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. A.R
Section 154Section 250Section 253(5)

section 250 of the act, the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has wrongly mentioned the addition figure as ₹ 1, 61,41,520/- as against the actual figure of ₹ 53,85,753/- 9. The ld. DR on the other hand relied upon the order of the ld. CIT (A)/NFAC. 10. On going through the orders of the AO as well

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 507/COCH/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2001-02

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

85,642 - 40,67,465) in liquor sales in the accounts on which the returns filed under section 139 and 153A were based for a period of about a month. In terms of percentage, the suppression worked out to 385.93% and 37.32% of disclosed sales in respect of restaurant and liquor sales respectively. With reference to the actual sales

M/S. MATHA ENTERPRISES,,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 303/COCH/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2002-03

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

85,642 - 40,67,465) in liquor sales in the accounts on which the returns filed under section 139 and 153A were based for a period of about a month. In terms of percentage, the suppression worked out to 385.93% and 37.32% of disclosed sales in respect of restaurant and liquor sales respectively. With reference to the actual sales

M/S BEST BAKERY & ICE CREAM PARLOUR,ANGAMALLY vs. ACIT, ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 513/COCH/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

85,642 - 40,67,465) in liquor sales in the accounts on which the returns filed under section 139 and 153A were based for a period of about a month. In terms of percentage, the suppression worked out to 385.93% and 37.32% of disclosed sales in respect of restaurant and liquor sales respectively. With reference to the actual sales

DCIT, ERNAKULAM vs. MATHA ENTERPRISES, ANGAMALLY

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 269/COCH/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Dec 2019AY 2001-02

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

For Respondent: Sri. Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha, CIT(DR)

85,642 - 40,67,465) in liquor sales in the accounts on which the returns filed under section 139 and 153A were based for a period of about a month. In terms of percentage, the suppression worked out to 385.93% and 37.32% of disclosed sales in respect of restaurant and liquor sales respectively. With reference to the actual sales