Search: section 68 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

206 results for “section 68”+ Section 133clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,356 Mumbai2,294 Kolkata937 Karnataka508 Bangalore491 Ahmedabad423 Jaipur368 Surat211 Indore206 Chennai197 Pune197 Chandigarh195 Raipur189 Hyderabad153 Guwahati74 Calcutta72 Lucknow70 Cochin69 Rajkot61 Amritsar57 Nagpur56 Ranchi47 Visakhapatnam42 Agra40 Telangana39 Cuttack34 Patna25 Allahabad21 Jodhpur15 Varanasi15 SC12 Dehradun11 Rajasthan6 Panaji4 Orissa4 Jabalpur3 Punjab & Haryana1 Andhra Pradesh1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 68151 Section 143(3)119 Addition to Income85 Section 14748 Section 143(2)47 Section 153A42 Disallowance36 Section 139(1)18 Section 14818 Section 14A

DCIT,CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI KRIHNA KUMAR VERMA, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 185/IND/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 139Section 153ASection 69ASection 69B

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D i.e. from residuary category w.e.f 01.04.2017. However, in the present case search u/s 132 and survey u/s 133

ACIT 5 (1), BHOPAL vs. M/S VINDHYA SOLVENT PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 206 · Page 1 of 11

...

16

Unexplained Cash Credit12

ITA 281/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Oct 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: RespondentbyFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

68 of the Act was done as (treating the opening balance as peak credit basis), which was, in turn, deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 15. It appears from the record that before the Ld.AO, the appellant duly furnished the details of its creditors. Further that, by and under notice under Section 133

THE ITO 2 (1) INDORE, INDORE vs. M/S HI LINK CITY HOMES P LTD,, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 2(1) M/S. Hi Link City Homes Indore Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 06, Sadhna Nagar, Vs. Airport Road, Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aacch5920K Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani & Shri Pankaj Shah, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

133(6) / 131 by Nilesh Jain is not within the control of assessee and that is why the assessee has even written to Ld. AO to proceed at his cost. Ld. AR has also invited our attention to the verdict of section 68

THE I.T.O. 2 (1), INDORE vs. M/S HI LINK BUILDCON P LTD , INDORE

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ito, 2(1) M/S. Hi Link Buildcon Pvt. Indore Ltd. बनाम/ 06, Sadhna Nagar, Vs. Airport Road, Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aacch7180H Assessee By Shri Milind Wadhwani & Shri Pankaj Shah, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

133(6) / 131 by Nilesh Jain is not within the control of assessee and that is why the assessee has even written to Ld. AO to proceed at his cost. Ld. AR has also invited our attention to the verdict of section 68

AABHUSHAN,DHAMNOD, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO DHAR, DHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 344/IND/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniaabhushan Dhamnod Ito, Dhar 1St Floor, Ganpati Market Ab Road Dhamnod Vs. Mp (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abgfa0812K Assessee By Shri Pranay Goyal & Shri S.N. Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 09.05.2024 O R D E R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 have already been deleted on merit. Therefore, the charging of tax liability as per amended provisions of section 115BBE on these grounds is academic in nature and having no impact on the fate of these grounds." 13. The above findings of the Ld. CIT(A) have not been controverted

BHAGWAN SINGH GOUR RUNNING AASHIRWAD FUEL POINT,VILLAGE NEEMKHEDI POST RUNAHA vs. ITO- 4 (3) CV R JAYA KUMAR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF ITO

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 159/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Feb 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Singh Gangwar, Rep. of the assesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR

Section 115Section 115BSection 115bSection 1ISection 69

68 which is not proper. Therefore the addition is deleted. 8. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed.” 16. Again in the case of Saidatar Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 1613/Mum/2021 vide order dated 05.09.2022, the ITAT again on similar set of facts allowing the appeal of the assessee on this issue

DECENT INDUSTRIES P. LTD.,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(2), BHOPAL

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 356/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Decent Industries Ito-1(2), Private Ltd, Bhopal 5Th Floor, Corporate Park, बनाम/ Db City Area Hills, Vs. Opp. M.P. Nagar Zone I, Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaeca6271G Assessee By Ms. Shilpa Gupta & Shri N.K. Gupta Revenue By Shri V.K. Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.08.2024

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 68

section 68 is very much illegal. Ld. DR for assessee has though relied upon statements of Shri Anand Sharma and the observations made by AO in various paras of assessment-order (as narrated by us in foregoing paras of this order) but, however, could not controvert these vital points as noted by us. Page 27 of 44 M/s Decent

M/S OREF SECURITIES PRIVATE LTD. ,MANDSAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms.Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.70/Ind/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Vs. Ito, Mandsaur. M/S.Oref Securities P.Ltd. 69, Agrasen Nagar B/H. Mid India Mandsaur.

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Solanki, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

68 and not u/s 56(2)(viib ). 1.2 The AO has not made addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) but. has discussed the section in detail We have raised ground no. 1 to keep this matter alive. If any adjudication is to be given on this issue, We may be given some time to give separate submission on this

YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN FROLIC REALTY (P) LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-3(1) , INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 290/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema & shri GaganFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R

Section 68 of the Act is concerned, the Appellant has already discharged its obligation through providing evidences like the details name, address, bank statement, net worth of the counterparties, etc. to prove identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of counterparties. Further, the identity of the counterparties is proved beyond doubt as the Assessing Officer has issued notices u/s. 133

DCIT-4(1), INDORE vs. M/S. YAKSHA INFRASTRUCTURE COM. PVT. LTD., TALOJA, RAIGARH

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 460/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema & shri GaganFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R

Section 68 of the Act is concerned, the Appellant has already discharged its obligation through providing evidences like the details name, address, bank statement, net worth of the counterparties, etc. to prove identity, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of counterparties. Further, the identity of the counterparties is proved beyond doubt as the Assessing Officer has issued notices u/s. 133

TYHE ITO-4(5), INDORE vs. M/S. URVASHI WORLD WIDE P. LTD., INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 569/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri .P.D. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT, DR

Section 131(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 68 (kindly refer CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Pvt. Ltd (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Del) and DCIT vs. Sanwerwala Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (2021) 42 ITJ 298 (Trib. Indore). We submit that the respondent proved the source of the source besides the fact that all three lender companies had given unsecured loans had filed their Income tax return whereby identity

THE ACIT, 4(1), INDORE vs. SHRI SANJAY LUNAWAT, INDORE

ITA 396/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40Section 68

section 68 of the Act by stating that only copy of ledger was filed without PAN. The appellant during 19 Sanjay Lunawat ITA No.396/Ind/2018 & C.O.No.32/Ind/2018 the course of appellate proceeding filed copy of account of the appellant in the book of M/s Jain Infratech and contra account of M/s Jain Infratech in the book of the appellant, copy

THE ACIT-5(1), INDORE vs. M/S. SUNDERDEEP CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., INDORE

In the result all the grounds raised by the Revenue are

ITA 380/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2012-13

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 41(1)(a)Section 68

section 68 of the I.T. 21 Sunderdeep Construction Pvt. Ltd Act does not come into play. No material was brought by the Ld. A.O to prove that the money was the assessee’s own undisclosed income” (emphasis supplied). 16. As regards the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd (supra) relied

THE DCIT, 1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. MODERN LABORATORIES, INDORE

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 277/IND/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./ ./ ./ I.T.A. No.277 & Co.16/Ind/2014 ./ "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-09

133(6) issued to such parties who have directly confirmed the transaction. However, the AO made the addition of Rs.1,48,00, 000 under section 68

ITO 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S AMKAY COLONISERS & BUILDERS P LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, this appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 32/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito 1(1) M/S. Amkay Colonisers & Bhopal Builders Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ 16, Amar Stambh, Z-1, M.P. Nagar Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue ) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaeca 6272 F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 12.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.12.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

133(6) as also summon issued u/s 131 of the DDIT Investigation Kolkata. Therefore, addition of Rs.3,75,00,000/- is being made to the total income of the assessee on account of credit from unexplained sources for which genuineness is not established. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are being initiated for concealing the particulars of income

ITO 1(3), AYKAR BHAWAN ANNEX, INDORE vs. M/S. FAIRDEAL ENGINEERING & BODY BUILDING CO. (P) LTD. , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 920/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and alsoissued summons under Section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the directors of the creditor company. The AO, in his remand report, has admitted that in response to the letters and summons so issued, the lender company has furnished the necessary documents so called for and the directors

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. SHRI RAVI ARORA, INDORE

ITA 212/IND/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Dcit-5(1), Shri Ravi Arora, Indore 1007, Khatiwala Tank, बनाम/ 236, Indraprasth Tower, 6, M.G. Road, Vs. Indore. (Revenue / Appellant) (Assessee / Respondent) Pan: Agdpa8921H Assessee By Shri Yash Kukreja, Ca & Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Adv & Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri P.K.Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

section 68 does not permit any addition qua the opening balances which are carried forward from earlier year and not accepted during the year. Ld. CIT(A) has rightly taken into account the decision of (i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Usha Stud Farms (301 ITR 384), (ii) Shri Vardhman Overseas Page

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

ITA 230/IND/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

DCIT CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

ITA 228/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus

ACIT CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SARTHAK INNOVATION (P) LTD., INDORE

ITA 229/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: 28.02.2023For Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.D.R

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 404(2)Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)

68,732/- 18 3. Shri Utpal Goyal 1,31,868/- 18 4. Shri Narendra Barta 8,58,336/- 16 Total 45,65,847/- 5. According to the Ld. AO, such excess interest to the persons covered under Section 40A(2)(b) of the Act was not available in terms of the provisions of the said Section and thus