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.

276 results for “section 68”+ Section 268Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi276Jabalpur50Ahmedabad22Mumbai16Cochin16Kolkata16Jaipur14Nagpur3Hyderabad2Chennai2Visakhapatnam2Lucknow1SC1Telangana1Indore1

Key Topics

Exemption64Section 153A20Section 6815Section 13214Addition to Income14Section 268A10Section 132A8Section 1396Section 143(3)5Section 148

ITO WARD - 3(4), NOIDA vs. SHOBHA AGNIHOTRI, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1193/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Memebr D-4, Sec-27, Noida – 201 301 Noida-201 301 Pan No. Aewpa 0847 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By -None- Revenue By Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Relevant Facts As Culled From The Material On Records Are As Under:

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 68

68 of the Act 3 only on the basis of conjectures and surmises is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, to alter or to amend grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” 5. On the date of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee

Showing 1–20 of 276 · Page 1 of 14

...
4
Deduction3
Disallowance3

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. MRS. NEELAM JAIN, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2001-02

For Appellant: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv
Section 268ASection 46ASection 68

68 in the absence of supporting evidence. 5) Deleting the addition of Rs. 1,107,500/- made on account of cash deposit. The appellant craves the right to alter, amend, add or substitute the grounds of appeal.” 3. At the time of hearing, Sh. Kapil Goel, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the tax effect in this appeal

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. G. RAM BOOKS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2709/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2000-01

For Appellant: Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 268ASection 68

68 of the I.T. Act being unexplained credits. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred, in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case, in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,05,000/- ignoring the facts and findings that the investors are mere entry operators. 3. The appellant craves to add, alter, amend, modify, add or forego any ground

M/S. ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARS TOBACCO CO., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4901/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Kumar, Adv. & Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 268A

68 being the unexplailned cash credits. 2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the fact that the assesseee did not discharge the onus of proving the credit worthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, or amend any grounds of the appeal raised abvoe at the time of the hearing

DCIT, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S CELL COM TELSESERVICES PVT. LTD.,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2683/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2683/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Dcit Circle-1 Vs Cell Com Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., A- Ghaziabad 52, A-36, Upsidc Industrial Area, Sikandarabad, Bulandshahar- 203205 Pan-Aaccc1688D (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 51/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Cell Com Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., A- Vs Dcit Circle-1 52, A-36, Upsidc Industrial Area, Ghaziabad Sikandarabad, Bulandshahar-203205 Pan-Aaccc1688D (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No- Aaccc1688D Assessee By : Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. Dr Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018

For Appellant: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate
Section 268Section 268ASection 43BSection 68

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as the assessee has failed to discharge his onus to prove the identity, genuineness and capacity of the creditors. iii. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the decision of Hon’ble Kerela High Court in the case of Unneeri Kutty which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S OXIGEN SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, all appeals of the Revenue and Cross objections of the assessees stand dismissed

ITA 3764/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am

68. 5146/Del/2015 DCIT, Circle 16(1) Mansarovar Builders 2009-10 None C.R. Building, IP Pvt. Ltd., 48/1, Malcha Estate, New Delhi Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi 69. 5154/Del/2015 ACIT, Circle 33(1), Plasto Pack Industries, 2011-12 New Delhi 103, Pratap Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi PAN: AAFFP3293F 70. 285/Del/2015 DCIT, CC-31 Madhvilata Grantie 2009-10 None

M/S TIMES INTERNET LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2333/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri I.P.S. Bindra, CIT- DR
Section 14A

68,000/-, being the lease rent for the period of four months from 1.4.2005 to 31.7.2005. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The lease deed entered into between the assessee and its holding company provides the effective date as 1.4.2005, though it was executed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S TIMES INTERNET LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2986/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri I.P.S. Bindra, CIT- DR
Section 14A

68,000/-, being the lease rent for the period of four months from 1.4.2005 to 31.7.2005. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The lease deed entered into between the assessee and its holding company provides the effective date as 1.4.2005, though it was executed

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. KANODIA TECHNOPLAST PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Departmental appeal is not maintainable as the appeal filed against the Board instructions referred to above and therefore, the appeal of the Department is liable to be dismissed

ITA 5458/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Satish Kumar Gupta
Section 268ASection 68

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Admittedly, the tax effect in the Departmental Appeal is less than Rs.50 lakhs. Vide Circular No.3/2018 Dated 11th July, 2018 issued by CBDT under section 268A

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. WORTHWHILE PORTFOLIO PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Departmental appeal is not maintainable as the appeal filed against the Board instructions referred to above and therefore, the appeal of the Department is liable to be dismissed

ITA 1144/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R
Section 268ASection 68

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Admittedly, the tax effect in the Departmental Appeal is less than Rs.50 lakhs. Vide Circular No.3/2018 Dated 11th July, 2018 issued by CBDT under section 268A

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4 , NEW DELHI vs. NANY DUGGAL, FARIDABAD

In the result, the Departmental Appeals are not maintainable as have been filed against the instruction of the Board

ITA 3533/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 268ASection 68

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Admittedly, the tax effect in the Departmental Appeals is less than Rs.20 lakhs. Vide Circular No. 3 of 2018 Dated 11.07.2018 issued by CBDT under section 268A

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4 , NEW DELHI vs. NEERU DUGGAL, FARIDABAD

In the result, the Departmental Appeals are not maintainable as have been filed against the instruction of the Board

ITA 3534/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 268ASection 68

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Admittedly, the tax effect in the Departmental Appeals is less than Rs.20 lakhs. Vide Circular No. 3 of 2018 Dated 11.07.2018 issued by CBDT under section 268A

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI vs. POONAM DUGGAL, FARIDABAD

In the result, the Departmental Appeals are not maintainable as have been filed against the instruction of the Board

ITA 3535/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 268ASection 68

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Admittedly, the tax effect in the Departmental Appeals is less than Rs.20 lakhs. Vide Circular No. 3 of 2018 Dated 11.07.2018 issued by CBDT under section 268A

ITO, WARD- 23(4), NEW DELHI vs. SIMCO INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the Departmental Appeal is not maintainable as have been filed against the instruction of the Board

ITA 434/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Gupta, C.A. &For Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kumar Jiwani, Sr. DR
Section 268ASection 68

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Admittedly, the tax effect in the Departmental Appeal is less than Rs.20 lakhs. Vide Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by CBDT under section 268A

ITO, WARD-35(2), NEW DELHI vs. UNIQUE HRV RESIDENCY, DELHI

In the result, the Departmental Appeal is not maintainable as have been filed against the instruction of the Board

ITA 3949/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Anjula Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 268ASection 68

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2 ITA.No.3949/Del./2018 Unique HRV Residency, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. 2. I have heard the Learned D.R. Admittedly, the tax effect in the Departmental Appeal is less than Rs.20 lakhs. Vide Circular No. 3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by CBDT under section 268A

ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, NEW DELHI vs. SURANA BUILDTECH P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Departmental appeal is not maintainable as the appeal is filed against the Board instructions referred to above and therefore, the appeal of the Department is liable to be dismissed

ITA 4891/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 268ASection 68

68 of the 2 ITA.No.4891/Del./2017 M/s. Surana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. I.T. Act, 1961 and in deleting the addition of Rs.75,000/- on account of unexplained commission. 2. Admittedly, the tax effect in the Departmental Appeal is less than Rs.50 lakhs. Vide Circular No.3/2018 Dated 11th July, 2018 issued by CBDT under section 268A

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHEETAL INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and C

ITA 1786/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri A. N. Mishraassessment Year : 2005-06 Dcit, Central Circle-2, Sheetal International Pvt. Ltd., G-81/A, 2Nd Floor, Vijay Chowk, New Delhi Vs. Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacs 3368 N (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.134/Del/2013 (In Ita No.1786/Del/2013) Assessment Year : 2005-06 Sheetal International Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle-2, G-81/A, 2Nd Floor, Vijay Chowk, Vs. New Delhi Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi. Pan : Aaacs 3368 N (Appellant) (Respondent) : Department By Shri S. S. Rana, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Ashu Golal, Ca Date Of Hearing : 21-11-2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-11-2016 O R D E R Per Diva Singh, J.M. : The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Iii, New Delhi Dated 14.01.2013 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06 Passed Under Section 153C/143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection Against The Appeal Of The Revenue. 2. Both The Appeal & Cross Objection Relating To The Assessee Emanating From The Same Assessment Year Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri Ashu Golal, CA
Section 153CSection 268ASection 68

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the facts of the case that the assessee had not discharged its onus of providing the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction, as no copy of ITR and bank statement was provided except confirmation

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S KOKOLATH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4346/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Gotru, Sr- DRFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 40

68,51,574/- and AO had completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the Act'] at an income of Rs. 78,86,140/-. In the assessment order AO has mentioned that the assessee has not started its business in the relevant year as the land purchased had been declared as investment

ACIT, MEERUT vs. SHRI MUKESH JOSHI, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3317/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

Section 268ASection 68

section 68 of the IT Act. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in law and in deleting the addition of Rs.6,21,339/- on account of unexplained cash credit without appreciating the fact that the onus to prove the genuineness and source of these alleged unsecured loans lay on the assessee and the assessee has failed to discharge

ACIT, MEERUT vs. SHRI MUKESH JOSHI, NOIDA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3316/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

Section 268ASection 68

section 68 of the IT Act. 3. That the CIT(A) erred in law and in deleting the addition of Rs.6,21,339/- on account of unexplained cash credit without appreciating the fact that the onus to prove the genuineness and source of these alleged unsecured loans lay on the assessee and the assessee has failed to discharge