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.

1,285 results for “section 68”+ Section 9clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi9,292Mumbai7,835Bangalore2,363Kolkata2,253Ahmedabad1,805Chennai1,798Jaipur1,362Hyderabad1,285Pune1,166Surat822Chandigarh805Karnataka775Indore738Cochin529Raipur437Rajkot403Visakhapatnam384Nagpur247Amritsar244Lucknow217Cuttack215Agra215Guwahati192Telangana151Jodhpur120SC115Ranchi112Jabalpur104Patna101Calcutta96Allahabad94Panaji89Dehradun79Varanasi35Rajasthan22Kerala13Orissa10A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN4Uttarakhand3Gauhati3Punjab & Haryana3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1Tripura1Himachal Pradesh1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1Andhra Pradesh1ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Section 68110Section 143(3)99Addition to Income93Section 153B72Section 153A65Section 153C44Search & Seizure41Section 13236Section 292C26

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IMRANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 436/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132(4)

9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, the provisions

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED ZEESHANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 1,285 · Page 1 of 65

...
Cash Deposit25
Section 6924
Disallowance17
ITA 432/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132(4)

9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, the provisions

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IRFANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 442/HYD/2022[2018-9]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132(4)

9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, the provisions

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SYED IMRANUDDIN, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 437/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.S.No Appeal In Ita No Revenue Assessee A.Y 1 432/Hyd/2022 Acit, Syed 2018- Central Zeeshanuddin 19 Circle 2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Bqgps0128A 2 436/Hyd/2022 & -Do- Syed Imranuddin 2017- 437/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 18 3 Pan:Aajpi6494F 4 442/Hyd/2022 -Do- Syed Irfanuddin 2018- Hyderabad 19 Pan:Aappi4693A िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132(4)

9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, the provisions

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

GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 195/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that although the appellant claimed that the stamp duty and other charges has been paid out of amount received from partners, but the identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the creditors from whom the amount was received was not proved. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the learned

GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 164/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that although the appellant claimed that the stamp duty and other charges has been paid out of amount received from partners, but the identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the creditors from whom the amount was received was not proved. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the learned

GRR HOLDINGS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 194/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.164, 194 & 195/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2017-18) Grr Holdings Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 3(3) Pan:Aaqfg0867M Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: N O N E सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : N O N E
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that although the appellant claimed that the stamp duty and other charges has been paid out of amount received from partners, but the identity, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the creditors from whom the amount was received was not proved. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the learned

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

9. In view of this, since the aforesaid surrender is not covered under the provisions of Section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 690, the provisions

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

section 69B is not applicable to the facts of the case. 7. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition though same amount has been treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the firm M/s. Supreme Agro by the Assessing Officer which was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) in his appeal order

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

section 69B is not applicable to the facts of the case. 7. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition though same amount has been treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the firm M/s. Supreme Agro by the Assessing Officer which was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) in his appeal 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

section 69B is not applicable to the facts of the case. 7. The ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition though same amount has been treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the firm M/s. Supreme Agro by the Assessing Officer which was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) in his appeal order

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

68 are bad-in-law. 3 ITA.No.376/Hyd./2024 8. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.3,00,00,096/-without considering the information furnished by the appellant during the appellate proceedings. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the amount of 3,00,00,000/- was received

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

68 and assessed-as such, @ 60% tax irate as prescribed under provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act.” In view of the detailed discussion above and the provisions of section 270A(9

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

68 and assessed-as such, @ 60% tax irate as prescribed under provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act.” In view of the detailed discussion above and the provisions of section 270A(9

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

68 and assessed-as such, @ 60% tax irate as prescribed under provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act.” In view of the detailed discussion above and the provisions of section 270A(9

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

68 and assessed-as such, @ 60% tax irate as prescribed under provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act.” In view of the detailed discussion above and the provisions of section 270A(9

LALITHA PADMAJA THALLAPALLI,KURNOOL vs. ITO., WARD-1, KURNOOL

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

ITA 1243/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

9 Lalitha Padmaja Thallapalli Chordia Vs. ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 and also the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Puran Chand Mittal (2012) 347 ITR 565. Therefore, in our considered view, the A.O. has erred in making additions towards advances from customers as loan creditors under Section 68

N. NEMICHAND JEWELLERS,,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 133/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Jul 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. M. Nemichand Vs. A.C.I.T. Jewellers Secunderabad Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aacfm8833B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2022 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.02.2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y. 2019-20. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business Of Retail-Trading Of Gold Jewellery & Pawn Brokers. During The Course Of Vehicle Checking Duty Conducted During Parliament Elections, The Police Intercepted Shri Anil Kumar Jain At 8.30 P M On 20.02.2019 Near Subhan Bakery, Nampally, Hyderabad & Found A Bag Containing Cash Of Rs. 10,00,000/- While He Was Riding Honda Activa Bearing Reg. No.Ts10El1501 & Seized The Cash.

For Appellant: Sri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, DR
Section 131Section 132A(1)

Section 68. 9. Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

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 of the Income Tax Act, is erroneous and untenable. 3. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not appreciating the evidence filed in support of the appellants plea that the said addition is unwarranted. 2 Agarwal Industries Pvt.Ltd. 4. In any event the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred is not appreciating that the said cash credit did not result