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.

98 results for “section 68”+ Section 65clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi3,536Mumbai2,533Bangalore966Chennai733Ahmedabad640Karnataka640Kolkata553Jaipur540Hyderabad483Pune347Indore342Chandigarh325Surat298Cochin235Raipur126Visakhapatnam102Cuttack98Nagpur97Telangana89Rajkot86Lucknow82Ranchi78Calcutta68Jabalpur63Guwahati60Allahabad58Amritsar56SC55Agra47Patna47Jodhpur44Dehradun21Varanasi13Rajasthan9Orissa8Panaji5Uttarakhand3Andhra Pradesh1Kerala1Himachal Pradesh1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income64Section 801A63Disallowance45Deduction33Section 26330Section 14726Section 4026Section 143(3)20Section 153A19Section 270A

KANCHAN PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUTTACK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASMNT CIRCLE-2(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 198/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 133(6)Section 68

section 69 has held that in creating the legal fiction the phraseology employs the word "may" and not "shall". Thus the unsatisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case

Showing 1–20 of 98 · Page 1 of 5

18
Exemption16
Limitation/Time-bar14

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

65,91,030/-. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) and 143(1) were issued and served on the assessee. Assessment proceedings were completed by the AO and concluded with an addition of Rs.3,58,95,574/- under four different 2 grounds, thereby enhancing the taxable income of the assessee to Rs.5

MAA JAGAT JANANI SEVA TRUST,NAMBIRA vs. ACIT (EXEMPTION CIRCLE), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 249/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2014-2015 2015 Maa Maa Jagat Jagat Janani Janani Seva Seva Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Trust, At- -Nambira, Po: Income Income Tax, Tax, Exemption Exemption Bamebari, Ps: Joda, Dist: Bamebari, Ps: Joda, Dist: Circle, Bhubaneswar Circle, Bhubaneswar Keonjhar Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aadtm 1575 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/0 07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/0 /07/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Ord This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 7.6.2023 In Appeal No.Nfac/2013 Nfac/2013-14/10180318 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld Cit Kumar, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.MishraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194JSection 68

65,596/- from it. Hence, the transaction does not appear to be genuine and the same is unexplained cash credit within the meaning of section 68

KISHAN MOTORS,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-4(3), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 169/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 43B

65,553 under the head direct expenses) which is liable to be deleted. 6. That, the Ld. Forums below committed an error of law in disallowing the expenses of 23,545 u/s 43B of the Act in view of the fact that the appellant is following the exclusive method of accounting and the indirect taxes are neither the income

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

65 to-79 of Paper Book) * 13 In the instant case, assessee accepted share application money in cash from its Director who has a substantial interest in the company. Receipt of share application money and allotment are maintained like a current account The Tribunal held that" when the money has been received in current account, it cannot be covered under

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 206/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

65 to-79 of Paper Book) * 13 In the instant case, assessee accepted share application money in cash from its Director who has a substantial interest in the company. Receipt of share application money and allotment are maintained like a current account The Tribunal held that" when the money has been received in current account, it cannot be covered under

GANAPATI BUILDERS LIMITED,BARGARH vs. ITO, BARAGARH WARD, BARGARH, BARGARH

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 435/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
Section 250Section 250(1)Section 263Section 40Section 43BSection 68Section 69A

68 amounting to Rs 3,26,87,350 which was received from the customers as advance for booking flats even though such advances were supported by sale deeds without considering the statement of facts and submission given during appellate proceedings 2. For that Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs 1,65,22,000 which were also

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 45/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana HC) 13. Per contra Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued supporting the order

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SITANSU SEKHAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 38/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana HC) 13. Per contra Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued supporting the order

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 40/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana HC) 13. Per contra Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued supporting the order

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. ANUPAMA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 41/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana HC) 13. Per contra Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued supporting the order

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 42/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana HC) 13. Per contra Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued supporting the order

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. DEEPANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 43/CTK/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana HC) 13. Per contra Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued supporting the order

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. HIMANSU MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 44/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana HC) 13. Per contra Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued supporting the order

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. AMRUTA PREETAM MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 46/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana HC) 13. Per contra Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued supporting the order

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. MAMATA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 47/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana HC) 13. Per contra Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued supporting the order

ITO, BHADRAK WARD , BHADRAK vs. PARBATI MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 49/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana HC) 13. Per contra Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued supporting the order

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. KISHORE KUMAR MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 48/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana HC) 13. Per contra Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued supporting the order

ITO, BHADRAK WARD, BHADRAK vs. SMT. KUNTALA MOHAPATRA, BHADRAK

In the result, Appeals of the revenue in in ITANos

ITA 50/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am

For Appellant: Shri S.C Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

65(Delhi- Tri.) 4. Satish Kishore vs. ITO (2019) 110 taxmann.com 307 (Delhi-Tribunal.) 5. Anip Rastogi vs. ITO in ITANo.3809/Del/2018 (I.T.A.T., Delhi ) 6. CIT vs. Jasvinder Kaur (2013) 37 taxmann.com 286 (Gauhati High Court) 7. Chandan Gupta vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (Punjab & Haryana HC) 13. Per contra Ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently argued supporting the order

ACIT, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. CLASSIC SUPER CONSTRUCTION, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue i

ITA 57/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Apr 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Dillip Kumar Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.Tigga, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144

Section 68 of the Act would reveal that it would not apply to a situation where account books have not been rejected. We find no reason to differ from the opinion recorded by the Tribunal and, therefore, answer the questions of law against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed