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.

15 results for “section 68”+ Section 194A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai79Delhi51Chandigarh45Pune31Kolkata27Bangalore24Ahmedabad23Jaipur22Cuttack18Hyderabad15Chennai15Visakhapatnam14Rajkot10Raipur9Surat7Nagpur6Cochin5Jodhpur2Lucknow2Ranchi1Agra1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 4029Section 6817Disallowance12Addition to Income9Section 1476Unexplained Cash Credit5Section 142(1)4Section 143(2)4Section 143(3)4

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

3 M/s Gabarial Tieup Private Limited 25,00,056/- 4 M/s Neelgagan Suppliers Private Limited 25,00,056/- 5 M/s Outlook Vintrade Private Limited 25,00,056/- 6. M/s. Subharashi Enclave Private Limited 25,00,056/- 7. M/s. Viewmore Developers Private Limited 25,00,056/- 47. In support of contention of having accepted the unsecured loans from the above parties

SPECTRA EQUIPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 115J4
Section 36(1)(va)4
Depreciation4
ITA 500/HYD/2023[Assessment Year 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaassessment Year: 2017-18 Spectra Equipment Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aaccs8677C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Akanksha, C.A. For Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Narmada, Cit-Dr For Shri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Akanksha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Narmada, CIT-DR for Shri Madan Mohan Meena
Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

194A, 194B, 194BB and 194D, the rate or rates of income-tax specified in this behalf in the Finance Act of the relevant year ; (iii) for the purposes of deduction of tax under section 194LBA or section 194LBB or section 194LBC or section 195, the rate or rates of income-tax specified in this behalf

LAMPEX ELECTRONICS LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 589/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.N.Moorthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 115JSection 253(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

68 of the Act. 9. On this aspect, Learned AR submitted that the authorities did not seek any explanation from the assessee after submitting the books even Page 4 of 10 ITA Nos.589/Hyd/2020, 96/Hyd/2021 C.O.No.6/Hyd/2021 the Learned CIT(A) also did not give an opportunity to the assessee to explain the discrepancies in the invoices, which according to them

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. LAMPEX ELECTRONICS LIMITED , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 96/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.N.Moorthy, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 115JSection 253(2)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

68 of the Act. 9. On this aspect, Learned AR submitted that the authorities did not seek any explanation from the assessee after submitting the books even Page 4 of 10 ITA Nos.589/Hyd/2020, 96/Hyd/2021 C.O.No.6/Hyd/2021 the Learned CIT(A) also did not give an opportunity to the assessee to explain the discrepancies in the invoices, which according to them

ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

ITA 1266/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43BSection 68

3. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The details of relief given and the additions sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under : Addition made by Ld. Amount of Relief given Additions AO addition by Ld. sustained

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), HYDERABAD vs. ATHENA GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S VJIL CONSULTING LIMITED), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

ITA 895/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43BSection 68

3. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The details of relief given and the additions sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under : Addition made by Ld. Amount of Relief given Additions AO addition by Ld. sustained

XILINX INDIA TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground nos

ITA 895/HYD/2024[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jan 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 43BSection 68

3. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The details of relief given and the additions sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under : Addition made by Ld. Amount of Relief given Additions AO addition by Ld. sustained

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. RAICHANDANI PAHAL DEVELOPERS LLP, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 267/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Raichandani Pahal Income Tax, Developers Llp. Central Circle – 1(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaxfr6285M. (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No.16/Hyd/2022 (In Ita 267/Hyd/2022) M/S. Raichandani Pahal Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Developers Llp. Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 1(3), Pan : Aaxfr6285M. Hyderabad. (Cross Objector / (Respondent) Appellant) Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu Revenue By: Shri Kumar Adithya Date Of Hearing: 21.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.11.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This Appeal By The Revenue & Cross-Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Hyderabad Dated 26.04.2022 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

194A & proof thereof in the form of 26AS vii. Bank Statement of M/s. Raichandani Pahal Developers LLP, where the unsecured Loans are reflected. viii. Three lenders are men of means. 9.2. Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof by proving the ingredients of section 68 of the Act i.e., identity, creditworthiness and genuineness

ACIT., CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI vs. PONNAMBALAM KRISHNAN, CHITTOOR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 655/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G, Accountnat Member & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.655/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Shri Ponnambalam Krishnan, Tax, Circle 1(1), Tirupati. Vs. Ekjambarakuppam, Chittoor, A.P. Pan : Bedpk5641B (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.11/Hyd/2024 (Assessment Year:2017-18) (By Assessee) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala,Sr-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of 10/09/2024 Hearing: घोर्णध की रीख/Pronouncement: 20/09/2024

For Appellant: Shri E. Phalguna Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala,SR-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 40Section 68

3 C.O. No.11/Hyd/2024 Rs.18,01,470/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued section 142(1) notices to the assessee seeking information regarding cash deposit in the bank account. However, these notices remain uncompiled with and accordingly the Assessing Officer framed

G DHANANJAYA NAIDU, BANGALORE,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR

In the result, all the three Revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 677/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.G.V. Prasad, DR
Section 147Section 40

3 Bhanu 17,34,000 28,50,000 Credited to Bank Prakash a/c 51,34,000 89,16,318 AY. 2009-10: Rs. Rs. Sales: Flat No. 5 – Hemanth & Pallavi 38,71,050 Flat No. 10 – V. Rajasekharan 20,56,100 Add: Advance FY 2007-08 12,50,000 33,06,100 Flat No. 4 – Manjeeth Singh

ITO, WARD-2, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR vs. G.DHANUNJAYA NAIDU, B'LORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three Revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 970/HYD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.G.V. Prasad, DR
Section 147Section 40

3 Bhanu 17,34,000 28,50,000 Credited to Bank Prakash a/c 51,34,000 89,16,318 AY. 2009-10: Rs. Rs. Sales: Flat No. 5 – Hemanth & Pallavi 38,71,050 Flat No. 10 – V. Rajasekharan 20,56,100 Add: Advance FY 2007-08 12,50,000 33,06,100 Flat No. 4 – Manjeeth Singh

ITO, WARD-2, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR vs. G.DHANUNJAYA NAIDU, B'LORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three Revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 971/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.G.V. Prasad, DR
Section 147Section 40

3 Bhanu 17,34,000 28,50,000 Credited to Bank Prakash a/c 51,34,000 89,16,318 AY. 2009-10: Rs. Rs. Sales: Flat No. 5 – Hemanth & Pallavi 38,71,050 Flat No. 10 – V. Rajasekharan 20,56,100 Add: Advance FY 2007-08 12,50,000 33,06,100 Flat No. 4 – Manjeeth Singh

G DHANANJAYA NAIDU, BANGALORE,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR

In the result, all the three Revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 676/HYD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.G.V. Prasad, DR
Section 147Section 40

3 Bhanu 17,34,000 28,50,000 Credited to Bank Prakash a/c 51,34,000 89,16,318 AY. 2009-10: Rs. Rs. Sales: Flat No. 5 – Hemanth & Pallavi 38,71,050 Flat No. 10 – V. Rajasekharan 20,56,100 Add: Advance FY 2007-08 12,50,000 33,06,100 Flat No. 4 – Manjeeth Singh

ITO, WARD-2, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR vs. G.DHANUNJAYA NAIDU, B'LORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three Revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 972/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.G.V. Prasad, DR
Section 147Section 40

3 Bhanu 17,34,000 28,50,000 Credited to Bank Prakash a/c 51,34,000 89,16,318 AY. 2009-10: Rs. Rs. Sales: Flat No. 5 – Hemanth & Pallavi 38,71,050 Flat No. 10 – V. Rajasekharan 20,56,100 Add: Advance FY 2007-08 12,50,000 33,06,100 Flat No. 4 – Manjeeth Singh

G DHANANJAYA NAIDU, BANGALORE,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR

In the result, all the three Revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 678/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.G.V. Prasad, DR
Section 147Section 40

3 Bhanu 17,34,000 28,50,000 Credited to Bank Prakash a/c 51,34,000 89,16,318 AY. 2009-10: Rs. Rs. Sales: Flat No. 5 – Hemanth & Pallavi 38,71,050 Flat No. 10 – V. Rajasekharan 20,56,100 Add: Advance FY 2007-08 12,50,000 33,06,100 Flat No. 4 – Manjeeth Singh