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.

10 results for “section 68”+ Section 364clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka440 Mumbai431 Delhi353 Chennai115 Jaipur78 Bangalore62 Ahmedabad54 Hyderabad40 Chandigarh37 Kolkata37 Calcutta35 Raipur20 Lucknow19 Indore18 Surat15 Cuttack10 Visakhapatnam8 Patna8 Pune8 Agra6 Telangana6 Cochin5 Rajkot5 Guwahati5 Amritsar4 SC4 Kerala2 Nagpur2 Varanasi1 Allahabad1 Andhra Pradesh1 Orissa1

Key Topics

Addition to Income10 Disallowance9 Section 143(3)7 Section 143(2)6 Section 406 Section 80G5 Section 143(1)5 Section 805 Deduction5 Depreciation

M/S. NIYATI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,JHARSUGUDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 160/CTK/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2006-2007

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Kumar Kedia, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 131Section 250(4)Section 68

364 (Delhi). Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit - Assessment year 2000-01 -Sole fact that

BRIG.NARAYAN NAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, ITA No.30/CTK/2017 is partly allowed for

ITA 30/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: Disposed

5

ITAT Cuttack

05 Jun 2020

AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.30/Ctk/2017 & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.230/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Brig. Narayan Nayak, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Prop: M/S Industrial Security & Bhubaneswar Allied Services, F3-F5, Id Market, Irc Village, Nayapalli, Bhubanesar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Abapn 3373 Q (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Sahoo, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Two Appeals, One Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Dated 27.10.2016 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act & Another Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.04.2019 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.30/Ctk/2017, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Sahoo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

68 of the Act, 1961. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case 12 & ITA No.230/CTK/2019 as well as considering the submission of the assessee, we direct the AO to delete the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit. 16. With regard to addition made on account of leave encashment and gratuity raised in ground Nos.2

BRIG. NARAYAN NAYAK,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT-5(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, ITA No.30/CTK/2017 is partly allowed for

ITA 230/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.30/Ctk/2017 & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.230/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Brig. Narayan Nayak, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Prop: M/S Industrial Security & Bhubaneswar Allied Services, F3-F5, Id Market, Irc Village, Nayapalli, Bhubanesar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Abapn 3373 Q (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Sahoo, Ca िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2020 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: The Assessee Has Filed The Above Two Appeals, One Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Dated 27.10.2016 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act & Another Is Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 14.04.2019 Arising Out Of The Order Passed By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.30/Ctk/2017, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :-

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Sahoo, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 43BSection 44A

68 of the Act, 1961. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case 12 & ITA No.230/CTK/2019 as well as considering the submission of the assessee, we direct the AO to delete the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit. 16. With regard to addition made on account of leave encashment and gratuity raised in ground Nos.2

RUKMANI INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 358/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.358/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Rukmani Infra Projects Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar Plot No.251, District Centre, C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar-16 Pan No. : Aaecr 1585 L (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit-Dr राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Has Been Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.06.2017, For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Extracted From The Available Records Are That, The Assessee, A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act, 1956, Engaged In The Business Of Erection, Commissioning, Technical & Maintenance Service To Different Power Plants. The Return Of Income For The Ay 2013-14 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2013 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,65,91,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected Under Cass. Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee. Assessment Proceedings Were Completed By The Ao & Concluded With An Addition Of Rs.3,58,95,574/- Under Four Different

For Appellant: None

Section 143(2)Section 68

364/- paid before filling of return, without considering the facts and circumstances of the assessee business. Hence the addition is liable to be quashed. 3. Learned Assessing officer has added Rs.40,22,979/- as expenditure in capital nature without considering the nature of business and the facts and circumstances. Hence the addition is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned Assessing

M/S. UTKAL PLASTER PVT. LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 249/CTK/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 194CSection 40Section 68

section 194C. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed Rs.1,67,252/- u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Crescement Export Syndicate & Others (2013) 33 Taxman.com 250 and the Hon’ble Gujarat High

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 375/CTK/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DICT, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 381/CTK/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 333/CTK/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 93/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend

M/S. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee i

ITA 92/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Venugopal RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80G

section 80G of Rs.7,52,58,750/- arbitrarily is unjust and bad in law. 5. For that the appellant has submitted all relevant documents at the time of several hearings before the Ld. CIT (A) which he has not considered which is unjust and therefore bad in law. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add or to amend