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.

336 results for “section 68”+ Section 131clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,311Mumbai1,970Kolkata941Jaipur523Karnataka484Bangalore427Ahmedabad365Hyderabad336Chennai328Pune189Indore189Chandigarh184Surat159Raipur122Cochin107Nagpur99Rajkot83Visakhapatnam74Calcutta73Guwahati64Lucknow48Telangana44Jodhpur39Cuttack36Amritsar34Ranchi29Dehradun19Agra18Allahabad15Patna13SC12Varanasi7Jabalpur7Rajasthan6Orissa5Gauhati2Andhra Pradesh1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Addition to Income86Section 153A71Section 13264Section 143(3)53Section 6852Search & Seizure45Section 37(1)36Section 14835Section 153B30

ANJANEE VIJETHA KASTURI,KURNOOL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KURNOOL

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 196/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.G.V. Prasad, DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69B

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D of the Act and merely because the section was not specifically invoked, it does not change the character of income or the applicability of section 115BBE to such proceedings. 9. I have gone through the record in the light

Showing 1–20 of 336 · Page 1 of 17

...
Section 234A25
Survey u/s 133A17
Disallowance12

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. DEVENDER RAO GORUKANTI, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 439/HYD/2022[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 May 2023AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Acit,Cc-2(2) Vs Devender Rao Gourkanti Room No.616,6Th Floor . H.No.8-2-293/82/Nl/231 Aaykar Bhawan Mla Mp Colony Basheerbagh Jubilee Hills Hyderabad-500 004 Hyderabad-500 033 Pan : Akepg7452N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H.Srinivasulu Revenue By: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.06.2022 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad Relating To Ay 2021-22. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Partner In M/S. Yashoda Helathcare Services Pvt.Ltd & Derives Partner’S Remuneration & Interest On Capital. He Filed His Original Return Of Income On 28.12.2021 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,56,33,070/- A Search & Seizure Operation U/S. 132 Of The I.T. Act Was Conducted In The Case Of Yashoda Group On 22.12.2020, During Which The Case Of The Assessee Was Also Covered. In Response To Notice U/S. 153A Of The I.T.Act,The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Admitting Additional

For Appellant: Shri H.SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 34

68 to 69D. Therefore, the provisions of section 115BBE cannot be invoked. He submitted that the initial burden of proving the real-estate income is discharged by the assessee. The AO thereafter did not make any enquiry and disbelieved the fact of receipt of business income from the real- estate. Referring to the copy of the assessment order

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 121/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Narahari BiswalFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 68Section 69B

68 without any valid reason even though it was accounted for as business income in the books of accounts of the appellant firm. 4. The ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding Assessing Officer’s computation of tax u/s 115BBE. 5. The ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting appellant’s claim that interest u/s 234A and 234B are to be levied on returned

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 120/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Narahari BiswalFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 68Section 69B

68 without any valid reason even though it was accounted for as business income in the books of accounts of the appellant firm. 4. The ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding Assessing Officer’s computation of tax u/s 115BBE. 5. The ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting appellant’s claim that interest u/s 234A and 234B are to be levied on returned

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 119/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Narahari BiswalFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 68Section 69B

68 without any valid reason even though it was accounted for as business income in the books of accounts of the appellant firm. 4. The ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding Assessing Officer’s computation of tax u/s 115BBE. 5. The ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting appellant’s claim that interest u/s 234A and 234B are to be levied on returned

GUPTA ASHOK KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 376/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr. AR
Section 148Section 68

Section 68 can be made and is held by the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Gujarat), wherein the court held that "The genuineness of the transaction is proved by the fact that the payment to the assessee as well as repayment of the loan by the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 58/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 131Section 68

section 68 considering the facts of the appellant’s case. 8. The ld.CIT(A)’s finding that the AO, in the statement recorded from the appellant u/s 131

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MUSADDILAL GEMS AND JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 59/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 131Section 68

section 68 considering the facts of the appellant’s case. 8. The ld.CIT(A)’s finding that the AO, in the statement recorded from the appellant u/s 131

MUSADDILAL GEMS JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 560/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 131Section 68

section 68 considering the facts of the appellant’s case. 8. The ld.CIT(A)’s finding that the AO, in the statement recorded from the appellant u/s 131

VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 561/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 131Section 68

section 68 considering the facts of the appellant’s case. 8. The ld.CIT(A)’s finding that the AO, in the statement recorded from the appellant u/s 131

JAYA BALAJEE REAL MEDIA PVT LTD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 674/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Ble & Shri K. Narasimha Chary Hon’Bleassessment Year – 2017-18 Jaya Balaji Real Media Pvt Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Limited, Central Circle – 2(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaecb3005F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 68

68 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 6 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has filed detailed written submissions on the issue, which has been extracted in paragraph 5 on pages 57-112 of ld.CIT(A) order. The main contentions of the appellant before

VIVA BOARDS PRIVATE LIMITED,NIZAMABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed

ITA 1303/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the A.O., only for the reason of non-appearance in response to summons issued under Section 131

AGARWAL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 60/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Y.Ratnakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 115JSection 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

section 68 suggests that there has to be credit amounts in the books maintained by the assessee, such credit has to be a sum of money during the previous year and the assessee offers no explanation about the source of such credit in the books or the explanation offered by the assessee in the opinion of the Assessing Officer

MURAD KHETANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1376/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 68

131, dated 19.12.2018 were issued to the assessee. In response to the summons, the assessee filed a letter on 24.12.2018 requesting for an adjournment. The A.O., after taking relevant submissions of the assessee, observed that, though the assessee has submitted most of the loans are brought forward balances from the earlier financial years and only a few loans were taken

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 296/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri D.V.Anjaneyulu, ARFor Respondent: 01/06/2022
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68

131 of the Act or to call for information under section 133(6) of the Act from any person on presumption that the said person is a shareholder. Further according to the learned Assessing Officer there is a discrepancy in the letters dated 10/10/2017 and 19/12/2017 in respect of the number of shares proposed to be issued on various

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ANANTAPUR vs. SAVEERA HOSPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED, ANANTAPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are accordingly allowed and consequently the cross objections preferred by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 295/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri D.V.Anjaneyulu, ARFor Respondent: 01/06/2022
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 68

131 of the Act or to call for information under section 133(6) of the Act from any person on presumption that the said person is a shareholder. Further according to the learned Assessing Officer there is a discrepancy in the letters dated 10/10/2017 and 19/12/2017 in respect of the number of shares proposed to be issued on various

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. SURESH PRODUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 265/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA A. SrinivasFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 131Section 132Section 153C

131 of the Act, where he has confirmed that, no cash has been received. 14 ITA.No.265/Hyd./2022 Further, both the parties have explained the reasons for entering into exchange agreement of sale and as per the claim, the property in question was under attachment order under section 281B of the Act and to release the property, the appellant

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the Ld. AR on few occasions upheld the order of the Ld. AO as he was also of the view that the identity, creditworthiness, genuineness of the transaction have not been established. While arriving at such decision, he relied on the second remand report obtained from

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the Ld. AR on few occasions upheld the order of the Ld. AO as he was also of the view that the identity, creditworthiness, genuineness of the transaction have not been established. While arriving at such decision, he relied on the second remand report obtained from

SABITHA ANAND HOSPITAL,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 597/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Sabitha Anand Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hospital, Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Abwfs9326E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/03/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7.9.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Running A Hospital In The Name Of M/S. Sabitha Anand Hospitals. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 28.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.10,70,540/-. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted In The Case Of The Assessee On 27.9.2016. Consequent To The Survey Operation, The Assessee Filed A Revised Computation Of Income Of Page 1 Of 17

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 69

68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of (i the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent