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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai57Chandigarh42Delhi30Pune29Jaipur21Bangalore18Ahmedabad17Cuttack16Chennai14Kolkata14Hyderabad12Visakhapatnam10Rajkot8Nagpur6Raipur5Cochin5Lucknow2Jodhpur1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 4027Section 6810Disallowance9Section 1476Addition to Income6Section 143(2)4Section 143(3)4Section 43B3Section 14A3Unexplained Cash Credit

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

3
Depreciation3
TDS3
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

3) upon themselves. Hence, realisation of cash from them is illogical and appears to be fabricated by the appellant in its books of accounts. 5.6. On examination of the Balance Sheet of the appellant, it is seen that Trade receivables on 31.12.2016 is Rs. 2,18,73,573 and that

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

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

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