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.

603 results for “section 68”+ Section 182clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi603Karnataka466Mumbai416Bangalore152Chennai130Ahmedabad112Hyderabad94Jaipur87Kolkata85Chandigarh70Indore61Raipur56Surat40Pune35Amritsar28Guwahati26Rajkot23Visakhapatnam22Cochin21Calcutta18Lucknow13Cuttack11Telangana9Nagpur9SC8Allahabad8Jodhpur5Jabalpur5Kerala5Rajasthan5Agra4Dehradun3Ranchi1Patna1Varanasi1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 153A77Addition to Income71Section 6863Section 143(3)48Section 153D27Disallowance26Section 4023Section 271(1)(c)22Section 13222Section 147

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI vs. PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5970/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 127(1)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

section 68 is the same as in the case of share capital. The Ld. DR submitted that though there is no adverse statement in respect of the loan taken by the assessee from the various lenders but the onus is upon assessee which he has failed to discharge. The Ld. DR place reliance on the order of the Supreme

Showing 1–20 of 603 · Page 1 of 31

...
18
Penalty15
Search & Seizure15

PRAYAG POLYTECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6015/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 127(1)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

section 68 is the same as in the case of share capital. The Ld. DR submitted that though there is no adverse statement in respect of the loan taken by the assessee from the various lenders but the onus is upon assessee which he has failed to discharge. The Ld. DR place reliance on the order of the Supreme

KHOOBSOORAT FABRICS PVT LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 14(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 428/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 68

182 of JPB in paras 8 to 9 at pages 179-181) 6 THAT ONCE CASH SALES HAVE ALREADY BEEN OFFERED AS INCOME, CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK OUT OF SUCH CASH SALES CANNOT BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 68

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(2), NEW DELHI vs. BAWA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 352/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.352/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Dcit Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Circle 4(2) Vs. A-24, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. West, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacb4823D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 68

182 19,33,74,529 19,42,54,866 14,64,12,576 9 I.T.A. No. 352/Del/2021 Stock in 53.78 33.29 43.18 36.34 Trade/Turnover Ratio 4.16 From the analysis of the cash deposit ratio and also the GP ratio, nothing adverse is inferred. In fact, it is also not in dispute that the A.O also has accepted sales figures

VIJAY AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

section 69B. As nothing had been proved to show that any other amount than admitted had been paid by the assessee in order to buy shares, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition. 7.3 Further Hon’ble Tribunal in 80 TTJ 69 AFFIRMED BY GUJ HC IN 182 CTR 370, held that “However, the fact remains that

SINGHAL SUNRISE STEELS PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3103/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 3103/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Singhal Sunrise Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 241, Loha Mandi, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7938P Assessee By : Sh. M. S. Sekhon, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.09.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. M. S. Sekhon, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

section 68 for share capital / premium received by assessee company. Merely because assessee company had filed all primary evidence, it could not be said that onus on assessee to establish credit worthiness of investor companies stood discharged 2. PCIT Vs NDR PROMOTERS PVT LTD [2019] 102 taxmann.com 182

ACIT, CENTRAL CRCLE-18, NEW DELHI vs. SHIMMER DEVELOPERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1497/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 150Section 68

68 ITA No.l497/Del/20I8 ACIT vs. Shimmer Developers Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2011-12 of the Act are justified in law in the hands of the assessee company in the absence of any credit entry recorded in the books and having regard to the peculiar facts of the case and having regard to the law governing the field. It may be useful

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD vs. AGARWAL EARTH MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED, FARIDABAD

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

ITA 6084/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarincome Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Vs. Agarwal Earth Movers B-Block, New Cgo Complex, Private Limited, Nh-Iv, Nit Fartidabad 1316, Sector-29, Faridabad Haryana Haryana-121001 [Pan: Aadca7184K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Ms. Uma Upadhyaya, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

182 CTR 373 (Gujarat)[19-03-2001]) 5.4.11. In the view of foregoing discussion and respectfully following the judicial ratio, the ground no. 6 to 9 of the additions i.e. appeal against quantum addition of Rs.1,50,00,000/- u/s 68 as well as the additions of Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.5,68,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure

NIMBUS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 929/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 153A

182 which is the copy of notice dated 21.11.2017 issued by the AO u/s 133(6) to M/s Cindy Goods & Supply Pvt. Ltd. Referring to page 183 to 243, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the submission of the said company in response to notice u/s 133(6). Referring to page

NIMBUS (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 930/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 153A

182 which is the copy of notice dated 21.11.2017 issued by the AO u/s 133(6) to M/s Cindy Goods & Supply Pvt. Ltd. Referring to page 183 to 243, the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the submission of the said company in response to notice u/s 133(6). Referring to page

ATISH SINGLA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-43(7), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1185/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 68

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2 ITA.No.1185/Del./2021 Atish Singla, New Delhi. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of trading of footwear. He filed his return of income on 30.11.2017 declaring income of Rs.6,36,270/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. MOON BEVERAGES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 115/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

68 of the IT Act and the addition on account of interest received from Citi Bank (Addition of Rs.4.26 crores in case of Moon Beverages Ltd. for A.Y. 2011-12) is concerned, he submitted that no incriminating material was found as a result of search on the assessee. Referring to pages 1-9 of the common paper book

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. FORTUNE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD., DELHI

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 119/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

68 of the IT Act and the addition on account of interest received from Citi Bank (Addition of Rs.4.26 crores in case of Moon Beverages Ltd. for A.Y. 2011-12) is concerned, he submitted that no incriminating material was found as a result of search on the assessee. Referring to pages 1-9 of the common paper book

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. METBRASS PLASSIM INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 124/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

68 of the IT Act and the addition on account of interest received from Citi Bank (Addition of Rs.4.26 crores in case of Moon Beverages Ltd. for A.Y. 2011-12) is concerned, he submitted that no incriminating material was found as a result of search on the assessee. Referring to pages 1-9 of the common paper book

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. HINDUSTAN AQUA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 122/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

68 of the IT Act and the addition on account of interest received from Citi Bank (Addition of Rs.4.26 crores in case of Moon Beverages Ltd. for A.Y. 2011-12) is concerned, he submitted that no incriminating material was found as a result of search on the assessee. Referring to pages 1-9 of the common paper book

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. COMPETENT INFOWAYS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 128/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

68 of the IT Act and the addition on account of interest received from Citi Bank (Addition of Rs.4.26 crores in case of Moon Beverages Ltd. for A.Y. 2011-12) is concerned, he submitted that no incriminating material was found as a result of search on the assessee. Referring to pages 1-9 of the common paper book

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. HAL OFFSHORE LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 111/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

68 of the IT Act and the addition on account of interest received from Citi Bank (Addition of Rs.4.26 crores in case of Moon Beverages Ltd. for A.Y. 2011-12) is concerned, he submitted that no incriminating material was found as a result of search on the assessee. Referring to pages 1-9 of the common paper book

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI vs. SUNSTAR INFRA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, all the Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 816/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154

68 of the IT Act and the addition on account of interest received from Citi Bank (Addition of Rs.4.26 crores in case of Moon Beverages Ltd. for A.Y. 2011-12) is concerned, he submitted that no incriminating material was found as a result of search on the assessee. Referring to pages 1-9 of the common paper book

KAPIL CHHABRA,MORADABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2, MORADABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6345/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Yr: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

182 under section 68 of the Act alleging the same to be bogus in nature. 3. That the CIT(A) erred

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUNIL NAYYAR, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 6168/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Ajmani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

182. Suspicion, however strong it may be, is no ground for the AO for invoking the provisions of ITA No. 6168/Del/2016 & 19 CO No. 9/Del/2017 Sunil Nayyar section 145(3) of the Act", Thus the AO in any circumstances cannot ignore the books of accounts, though he can reject the same. What the AO has done that