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.

18 results for “section 68”+ Section 145(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,118Mumbai1,097Karnataka495Jaipur364Ahmedabad317Kolkata299Bangalore235Chennai194Chandigarh180Cochin129Agra126Surat120Indore107Hyderabad100Pune88Raipur75Rajkot74Lucknow56Calcutta54Amritsar53Visakhapatnam47Nagpur45Allahabad44Cuttack42Telangana40Ranchi37Jodhpur20Dehradun18Patna16SC16Guwahati15Varanasi7Rajasthan5Jabalpur4Panaji3Orissa3Kerala2Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income17Section 44B14Section 914Section 143(3)8Disallowance8Section 2637Section 685Section 1444Section 145(3)4Section 36(1)(va)

DCIT, RISHIKESH vs. M/S UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,, KOTDWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 2078/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 80

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as discrepancies found in the books and the book results shown by the assessee was not amenable to verification. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 11,54,74,533/ out of Rs. 13,76,29,909/ made on account

UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

4
Deduction3
Cash Deposit2
ITA 4201/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed
ITAT Dehradun
09 May 2025
AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 80

section 145 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as discrepancies found in the books and the book results shown by the assessee was not amenable to verification. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs. 11,54,74,533/ out of Rs. 13,76,29,909/ made on account

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. CHAKRATA FIRST AND ASSOCIATES, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 92/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs. Chakrata First & Circle-1(1)(1), Associates, C/O- Amit Tak 41 Dehradun Sanjay Marg, Hathori Fort, Jaipur, Rajasthan Pan: Aalfc2896B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Ahuja, Ar Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 145(3)Section 69A

2 | P a g e the said enhancement was grounded on the assessee's failure to substantiate the direct and indirect expenses as well as the purchases claimed by it in the Trading and P&L Account prepared for the year. 7. That, the appellant craves leave to add or amend any other more ground of appeal as stated above

ACIT, UTTRAKHAND vs. M/S. UTTARANCHAL JAL VIDYUT NIGAM LTD., DEHRADUN

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

ITA 736/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun24 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Circle-2, Nigam Ltd., 13-A, Subhash Road, Ujjwal, Maharani Bagh, Uttarakhand. Gms Road, Dehradun. Pan: Aaacu6672R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th December, 2016 Of The Cit(A), Dehradun, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts By Allowing Depreciation On Assets For Which The Actual Cost As Per Section 43(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Nil. 2. The Order Of The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Be Set Aside & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.”

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 32Section 43Section 43(1)

145(2), had to be the foundation on the basis of which the Income under the head “Business” should be computed by the Income tax Authority. Thereafter, the assessee made submissions on the concept of accrual and role of accounting standards. It was submitted that it had been judicially held that Income accrues or arises when the assessee acquires

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5584/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

145/- to the gross receipts chargeable to tax as fees for technical services under section 9(l)(vii) without appreciating that the said amount represented reimbursement of service tax which is not chargeable to tax. Lew of interest 9. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 234B and section

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3072/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

145/- to the gross receipts chargeable to tax as fees for technical services under section 9(l)(vii) without appreciating that the said amount represented reimbursement of service tax which is not chargeable to tax. Lew of interest 9. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 234B and section

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I. OVERSEAS LTD., NOIDA

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 3045/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

145/- to the gross receipts chargeable to tax as fees for technical services under section 9(l)(vii) without appreciating that the said amount represented reimbursement of service tax which is not chargeable to tax. Lew of interest 9. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 234B and section

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 2956/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

145/- to the gross receipts chargeable to tax as fees for technical services under section 9(l)(vii) without appreciating that the said amount represented reimbursement of service tax which is not chargeable to tax. Lew of interest 9. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 234B and section

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5565/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

145/- to the gross receipts chargeable to tax as fees for technical services under section 9(l)(vii) without appreciating that the said amount represented reimbursement of service tax which is not chargeable to tax. Lew of interest 9. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 234B and section

MI OVERSEAS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ADIT, DEHRADUN

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5583/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

145/- to the gross receipts chargeable to tax as fees for technical services under section 9(l)(vii) without appreciating that the said amount represented reimbursement of service tax which is not chargeable to tax. Lew of interest 9. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 234B and section

ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN vs. M/S. M.I, OVERSEAS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result ITA number 5584/Del/2013 filed by the assessee for assessment year

ITA 5564/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Thakur Singh Mapwal, JCIT DR
Section 263Section 44BSection 9

145/- to the gross receipts chargeable to tax as fees for technical services under section 9(l)(vii) without appreciating that the said amount represented reimbursement of service tax which is not chargeable to tax. Lew of interest 9. The Ld AO has erred on facts and in law in levying interest under section 234B and section

REENA VERMA,HARIDWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(5), ROORKEE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as above

ITA 2215/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40ASection 68

2 Reena Verma 3.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that section 40A (3) of the Act is wholly in applicable to the facts of the appellant since payments were covered under Rule 6DD of the Income Tax Rules and as such disallowance sustained is contrary to law and facts and hence untenable

M/S. REGALLIA JEWELS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 739/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Regallia Jewels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 162, Basement Hardyan Central Circle, Singh Road, Karol Bagh, New Dehradun Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccr9572R Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Narendra S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 21/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Narendra S. Jangpangi, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 292

section 145 ignoring the sanctity of finalising and auditing the books at the end of the year. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that failure to reject the books of accounts u/s 145 is a curable defect u/s 2928.” 2. Though the Assessee has raised several grounds

ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NAINITAL vs. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

ITA 1200/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

68,009/- worked/determined out/by the auditor appointed by the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel contended that the Revenue had taken all the adverse findings pointed out by the auditor appointed by the Revenue but not the loss determined by the auditor appointed by the Revenue. It was submitted that since the loss worked/determined out/by the auditor happened to be more than

ACIT, NAINITAL vs. M/S. KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LTD., NAINITAL

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed as above

ITA 908/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

68,009/- worked/determined out/by the auditor appointed by the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel contended that the Revenue had taken all the adverse findings pointed out by the auditor appointed by the Revenue but not the loss determined by the auditor appointed by the Revenue. It was submitted that since the loss worked/determined out/by the auditor happened to be more than

PUSHPA DEVI,RISHIKESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

In the result the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 78/DDN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Pushpa Devi Vs. Income Tax Officer, 31-Awas Vikas Colony, Ward 1(4) (1), Verbhadara Road, Rishikesh, Rishikesh, 249201, Uttarakhand Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Pan: Aldpd9616P Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. K. K. Juneja, Adv Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 Order

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 28Section 68

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs. 36,05,530/- on account of suppression of sale receipts u/s 28 of the Act and also made addition of Rs. 13,74,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 05/03/2024

KRISHNA KUMAR AGARWAL,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, UTTRAKHAND

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3248/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Krishna Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, M/S. Kumaon Brick Field, Ward-Khatima C./O- Adv. N.R. Goel, 32 E.C. Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan :Afqpa1977B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 40A(3)

68,030/- would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 2. The Revenue next seeks to buttress the point that the learned Assessing Officer has disallowed the assesseee’s cash payments under section 40A(3) alleged unaccounted purchases and other 2

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN vs. SWARNGANGA CONSTRUCTION P.LTD, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

For Appellant: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate
Section 144Section 153CSection 249(3)Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)

68 of the act by submitting cogent documentary evidences. Hence, addition on this count is unwarranted. (C) Page No. 71 to 76 containing the transaction of Rs. 50,00,000/- by the appellant company being loan given to M/s. KamyaRealinvestPvt.Ltd. This page pertain to loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- advanced to M/s. KamyaRealinvestPvt. Ltd.. The confirmation from loanee