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.

7 results for “section 68”+ Section 234Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,186Mumbai875Bangalore584Ahmedabad195Jaipur134Kolkata130Hyderabad122Chennai112Pune53Indore49Nagpur42Chandigarh41Rajkot35Surat35Allahabad34Karnataka31Agra30Lucknow27Ranchi24Jodhpur22Amritsar15Cochin14Visakhapatnam14Dehradun13Cuttack7Guwahati7Raipur6SC5Patna4Jabalpur2Telangana2Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 6816Section 234B11Section 234C8Section 143(3)6Addition to Income6Section 2504Section 1484Capital Gains3Section 234A2Section 143(1)

SHRI PRABHUDAYAL BERIWAL,JYOTINAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DIBRUGARH

ITA 93/GTY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati25 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 68Section 69A

section 68 of the Act. 1.2 Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal with the following grounds: “1. For that the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income tax erred in law and fact of the case while making addition u/s 68 for unsecured loan of Rs 1,11,00,000 taken from Premsagar Commercial Private Limited 2. For that

2
Undisclosed Income2
Reassessment2

INDER CHAND SAND,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

ITA 49/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act. 13. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Pine Animations Limited of Rs. 58.96.530/-. Page 3 of 15 I.T.A. Nos.: 49 & 51/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Inderchand Sand & Saroj Devi

SAROJ DEVI SAND,SILCHAR vs. INCOEM TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

ITA 51/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 68 of the Act. 13. That the authorities below erred in refusing to grant the beneficial treatment provided under the Act of the Capital gains earned by the assessee from the transfer of shares in M/s. Pine Animations Limited of Rs. 58.96.530/-. Page 3 of 15 I.T.A. Nos.: 49 & 51/Gty/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Inderchand Sand & Saroj Devi

SMT. SARAJ DEVI BAWRI ,DIMAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - DIMAPUR , DIMAPUR

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

ITA 226/GTY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati04 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 208Section 234BSection 234C

68,745 equity shares on the basis of a sap ratio of 1:3.80. Since assessee did not receive any consideration in cash she filed her return without computing any capital gains. During the FY 2013-14 the assessee when made aware that the said 2 Smt. Saroj Devi Bawri., AY- 2011-12 transaction may attract capital gain tax liability

RANEE NARAH,GUWAHATI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 84/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 68Section 69

234B Rs. 9879771 u/s 234C Rs. 28531 7. For that, any other ground/grounds may kindly be allowed to be urged at the time of hearing” I.T.A. No.: 84/GTY/2020 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ranee Narah. 3. During the course of appeal, the assessee submitted that there were two additions involved; deposit of cash during the demonetization period and protective assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- JORHAT, JORHAT vs. M/S. TOOR FINANCE COMPANY LTD,, JORHAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 305/GTY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati20 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

section 143(3) on 11.12.2017. The ld. Assessing Officer did not make addition of Rs.18,00,000/- to the income of the assessee. To buttress this aspect, we take note of the computation of income made at the end of the assessment order, which reads as under:- “14. With the above remarks, the total income of the assessee- company

SHRI SANJIBUR RAHMAN,AGARTALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, AGARTALA

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

ITA 249/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati30 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

68,655/- in the Bank account of the assessee. The ld. Assessing Officer has treated the net amount as undisclosed business receipt at Rs.3,1177,632/-. On this amount, he estimated the profit at 8% and made an addition of Rs.24,94,221/-. The case of the assessee is that a perusal of this Bank account would reveal that