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.

362 results for “section 68”+ Section 86clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,461Mumbai2,103Bangalore783Chennai583Karnataka583Ahmedabad578Jaipur489Kolkata427Hyderabad362Indore287Pune271Chandigarh236Raipur160Surat142Cochin104Visakhapatnam86Nagpur80Telangana72Cuttack69Calcutta59Jabalpur52Guwahati49Rajkot48Lucknow47Allahabad44Jodhpur35SC34Panaji31Amritsar30Ranchi28Agra28Patna20Orissa7Varanasi7Dehradun6Rajasthan6Andhra Pradesh1Kerala1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income83Section 13265Section 153A64Section 143(3)62Search & Seizure42Section 153B36Section 37(1)36Section 234A26Section 14825

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

Showing 1–20 of 362 · Page 1 of 19

...
Section 80I24
Deduction18
Disallowance16

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-16(1), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. MADHUSUDAN RAO LAGADAPATI, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 449/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

86 ITD 626], Delhi, wherein it was held as under: "The issue whether the income of non-resident is taxable or not is still to be decided with reference to the provisions of section 5(2) and, the provisions of Section 68

SURYA PRABHA SUNKAVALLI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1327/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri P.Jitendra Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

86,226/- by making an addition of Rs. 40,30,297/- under section 68 of the Act and a sum of Rs. 77,809/- by making

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

86,99,000/- for the assessment year 2014-15 and Rs.4,75,10,000/- for the assessment year 2015-16 respectively, which credits were found in the books of accounts as share capital of the assessee by treating the same as un-explained credits, under section 68

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

86,99,000/- for the assessment year 2014-15 and Rs.4,75,10,000/- for the assessment year 2015-16 respectively, which credits were found in the books of accounts as share capital of the assessee by treating the same as un-explained credits, under section 68

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 324/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

86,10,524/-, viz., (i). cash deposits: Rs. 29,33,600/-; and (ii). other than cash credits: Rs. 56,76,924/- , held the same as unexplained cash credits under Section 68

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 325/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

86,10,524/-, viz., (i). cash deposits: Rs. 29,33,600/-; and (ii). other than cash credits: Rs. 56,76,924/- , held the same as unexplained cash credits under Section 68

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 323/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

86,10,524/-, viz., (i). cash deposits: Rs. 29,33,600/-; and (ii). other than cash credits: Rs. 56,76,924/- , held the same as unexplained cash credits under Section 68

GEETHALA TEJASWINI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 322/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

86,10,524/-, viz., (i). cash deposits: Rs. 29,33,600/-; and (ii). other than cash credits: Rs. 56,76,924/- , held the same as unexplained cash credits under Section 68

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 have no application. Further, the assessee did not make any investment in any of the asset with this amount nor paid the same into bank account. Therefore, provisions of section 69 are also not applicable. He submitted that since the amount was received and repaid during the year as per the seized document, therefore, in view

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 have no application. Further, the assessee did not make any investment in any of the asset with this amount nor paid the same into bank account. Therefore, provisions of section 69 are also not applicable. He submitted that since the amount was received and repaid during the year as per the seized document, therefore, in view

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 have no application. Further, the assessee did not make any investment in any of the asset with this amount nor paid the same into bank account. Therefore, provisions of section 69 are also not applicable. He submitted that since the amount was received and repaid during the year as per the seized document, therefore, in view

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 have no application. Further, the assessee did not make any investment in any of the asset with this amount nor paid the same into bank account. Therefore, provisions of section 69 are also not applicable. He submitted that since the amount was received and repaid during the year as per the seized document, therefore, in view

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 have no application. Further, the assessee did not make any investment in any of the asset with this amount nor paid the same into bank account. Therefore, provisions of section 69 are also not applicable. He submitted that since the amount was received and repaid during the year as per the seized document, therefore, in view

NARESH SAMALA,WARANGAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, WARANGAL

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

ITA 1196/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President)

Section 115BSection 44ASection 68

Section 68 of the Act. However, fact remains that the 9 Naresh Samala assessee has not furnished any details, including cash book to the A.O. for his verification. The assessee has filed the extract of cash book from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, which is available at page Nos. 82 to 86

KIRAN BALA GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 341/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.341/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-10(1), Pan: Ahvpg6893K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Av Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 20/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/08/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

86,32,023/- that was made by the AO under section 68 of the Act (after declining the assessee

MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 242/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri Y.Ratnakar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

86,737 under section 68 of the Act are against the facts and evidence on record. 4. For these

BALREDDY GADE,SECUNDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT., CENTRAL RANGE-1, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 576/HYD/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.575 To 578/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14) Shri Balreddy Gade, Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Hyderabad. Central Range-1, Pan:Adepg7858D Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K C Devdas, C.A. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/08/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 28/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Bench :

For Appellant: Shri K C Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)Section 271DSection 68

68 and the consequent imposition of penalty under Section 271D. 9. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the penalty order is vitiated by a failure to consider the principles of natural justice, as the explanations and justifications submitted by the appellant were summarily disregarded without assigning any cogent reasons, making the penalty order arbitrary