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.

94 results for “section 68”+ Section 4Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi521Mumbai240Karnataka190Jaipur141Chennai126Bangalore119Ahmedabad118Hyderabad94Cochin88Indore47Pune42Kolkata38Chandigarh31Allahabad25Lucknow18Cuttack17Rajkot17Surat16Nagpur13SC13Visakhapatnam11Raipur8Guwahati7Dehradun7Jodhpur6Telangana6Varanasi6Agra5Jabalpur5Amritsar2Panaji2Orissa1Patna1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Rajasthan1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income74Section 13272Search & Seizure68Section 153C50Section 6943Section 139(1)43Section 153A31Section 143(3)15Section 132(4)11

SKANDA INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 515/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

4A) of the Act applies in favour of the assessee insofar as the expenditure being supported by the documents seized at the time of search. It was held that there is no need for a further proof u/s 37, since the AO did not endeavor to carry out any enquiry or investigation into the source of investment or the genuineness

SKANDA BUILDERS,KURNOOL vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 532/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

68,16,160/-. A search\nand seizure operations u/s 132 were conducted on 05.01.2022, and the case\nwas centralized to Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad on 07.04.2022. During the\nsearch action the CMD of the group disclosed unaccounted income of Rs 60\nCrs for all the entries of the group for 5 assessment years. Notice u/s 148 were\nissued

Showing 1–20 of 94 · Page 1 of 5

Section 143(2)10
Limitation/Time-bar8
Deduction6

ANDHRA PRADESH BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 292/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Y. Ratnakar, Advocate &For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 40a

4A shows that the payment towards privilege fee, special privilege fee is made in consideration for privilege conferred on APBCL. Privilege fee, special privilege fee, additional privilege fee cannot be treated as consideration for licence granted in case of retailers since privilege fee, special privilege fee, additional privilege fee are inextricably linked to sale price of liquor/quantum of sales

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 275/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT( DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139

68,967/- TOTAL Rs.37,69,70,390/- 12. In appeal, the learned CIT (A), for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 19.01.2024 allowed partial relief in respect of additions made towards suppression of sales and out of addition made by the ld. AO for six Asst. Years for Rs.37,69,70,390/-, has deleted Rs.22

GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 214/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT( DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139

68,967/- TOTAL Rs.37,69,70,390/- 12. In appeal, the learned CIT (A), for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 19.01.2024 allowed partial relief in respect of additions made towards suppression of sales and out of addition made by the ld. AO for six Asst. Years for Rs.37,69,70,390/-, has deleted Rs.22

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 278/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT( DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139

68,967/- TOTAL Rs.37,69,70,390/- 12. In appeal, the learned CIT (A), for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 19.01.2024 allowed partial relief in respect of additions made towards suppression of sales and out of addition made by the ld. AO for six Asst. Years for Rs.37,69,70,390/-, has deleted Rs.22

GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 217/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT( DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139

68,967/- TOTAL Rs.37,69,70,390/- 12. In appeal, the learned CIT (A), for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 19.01.2024 allowed partial relief in respect of additions made towards suppression of sales and out of addition made by the ld. AO for six Asst. Years for Rs.37,69,70,390/-, has deleted Rs.22

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 280/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT( DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139

68,967/- TOTAL Rs.37,69,70,390/- 12. In appeal, the learned CIT (A), for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 19.01.2024 allowed partial relief in respect of additions made towards suppression of sales and out of addition made by the ld. AO for six Asst. Years for Rs.37,69,70,390/-, has deleted Rs.22

GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 215/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT( DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139

68,967/- TOTAL Rs.37,69,70,390/- 12. In appeal, the learned CIT (A), for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 19.01.2024 allowed partial relief in respect of additions made towards suppression of sales and out of addition made by the ld. AO for six Asst. Years for Rs.37,69,70,390/-, has deleted Rs.22

GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 218/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT( DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139

68,967/- TOTAL Rs.37,69,70,390/- 12. In appeal, the learned CIT (A), for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 19.01.2024 allowed partial relief in respect of additions made towards suppression of sales and out of addition made by the ld. AO for six Asst. Years for Rs.37,69,70,390/-, has deleted Rs.22

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 279/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT( DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139

68,967/- TOTAL Rs.37,69,70,390/- 12. In appeal, the learned CIT (A), for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 19.01.2024 allowed partial relief in respect of additions made towards suppression of sales and out of addition made by the ld. AO for six Asst. Years for Rs.37,69,70,390/-, has deleted Rs.22

GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 216/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT( DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139

68,967/- TOTAL Rs.37,69,70,390/- 12. In appeal, the learned CIT (A), for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 19.01.2024 allowed partial relief in respect of additions made towards suppression of sales and out of addition made by the ld. AO for six Asst. Years for Rs.37,69,70,390/-, has deleted Rs.22

GIRIDHARI CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 219/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT( DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139

68,967/- TOTAL Rs.37,69,70,390/- 12. In appeal, the learned CIT (A), for the reasons stated in their appellate order dated 19.01.2024 allowed partial relief in respect of additions made towards suppression of sales and out of addition made by the ld. AO for six Asst. Years for Rs.37,69,70,390/-, has deleted Rs.22

SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 150/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. P. Sumitha, DR
Section 10(38)

4A) goes against the department and there is no other provision under the Income Tax Act where the learned Assessing Officer is permitted to presume without direct evidence. In such circumstances, the presumption raised by the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) is not lawful. Lastly, she submitted that the investigations made by the Income Tax Department

ANIRUDH VENKATA RAGI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 352/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

4A) goes against the department and there is no other provision under the Income Tax Act where the learned Assessing Officer is permitted to presume without direct evidence. In such circumstances, the presumption entertained by the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) is not lawful. Lastly, he submitted that the investigations made by the Income- Tax Department

PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

68 are not applicable and the addition of Rs.21.00 lakhs should be deleted. It was further submitted that the evidence on record clearly indicates that the amount was received from Shri M. Ranga Reddy who has given the above amount to the assessee for acquisition of a suitable property. He had paid certain amount by cheque and certain amount through

PUJALA MAHESH BABU ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 134/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

68 are not applicable and the addition of Rs.21.00 lakhs should be deleted. It was further submitted that the evidence on record clearly indicates that the amount was received from Shri M. Ranga Reddy who has given the above amount to the assessee for acquisition of a suitable property. He had paid certain amount by cheque and certain amount through

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 132/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

68 are not applicable and the addition of Rs.21.00 lakhs should be deleted. It was further submitted that the evidence on record clearly indicates that the amount was received from Shri M. Ranga Reddy who has given the above amount to the assessee for acquisition of a suitable property. He had paid certain amount by cheque and certain amount through

PUJALA MAHESH BABU,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 133/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

68 are not applicable and the addition of Rs.21.00 lakhs should be deleted. It was further submitted that the evidence on record clearly indicates that the amount was received from Shri M. Ranga Reddy who has given the above amount to the assessee for acquisition of a suitable property. He had paid certain amount by cheque and certain amount through

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD vs. PUJALA MAHESH BABU , RANGA REDDY

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 126/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyappeal In Ita No Assessee Revenue A.Y 132/Hyd/2018 Shri Pujala Mahesh A.C.I.T. Central 2012-13 Babu, Hyderabad Circle-2(3) Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L 133/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2013-14 134/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2014-15 135/Hyd/2019 -Do- -Do- 2015-16 126/Hyd/2019 A.C.I.T. Central Shri Pujala Mahesh 2013-14 Circle-2(3) Babu, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aeppp5729L Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,Dr

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram,DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234A(3)

68 are not applicable and the addition of Rs.21.00 lakhs should be deleted. It was further submitted that the evidence on record clearly indicates that the amount was received from Shri M. Ranga Reddy who has given the above amount to the assessee for acquisition of a suitable property. He had paid certain amount by cheque and certain amount through