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.

44 results for “section 68”+ Section 164(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi663Mumbai471Karnataka468Surat158Bangalore148Jaipur129Kolkata116Chennai82Ahmedabad76Chandigarh64Hyderabad57Pune53Indore44Lucknow39Visakhapatnam36Telangana35Ranchi35Raipur33Cuttack25Nagpur25Calcutta17Cochin14Guwahati13Agra10Allahabad9SC7Patna7Jodhpur6Amritsar6Rajkot5Rajasthan5Panaji5Orissa3Andhra Pradesh1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income34Section 143(3)28Section 6820Section 80I14Disallowance14Section 1112Section 14710Section 1010Section 14A9Section 12A

VIRENDRA KUMAR MANDOT,, SADAR BAZAR SAILANA RATLAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO-1, RATLAM, RATLAM

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 382/IND/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018
Section 147Section 69Section 69A

68 of the Act. The contention\nof the appellant in raising these grounds is that the AO has not considered\ncash sales which have been taken in the P&L account and the addition made\nby the AO has resulted in double addition.\n8.1 There have been lot of judicial pronouncements on the issue of cash\ndeposits during demonetization period

THE DCIT,1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. RITSPIN SYNTHETICS LTD., PITHAMPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms indicated above, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 213/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3

9
Penalty7
Reassessment4
ITAT Indore
13 Jan 2026
AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Agarwal, C.A. and Shri Pankaj Mogra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 68

164 taxmann.com 764 (Gujarat), the High Court held that here amount of loan received by assessee was returned within same financial year, appellate authorities had rightly deleted addition made under section 68 of the Act in respect of such loan. 10. In view of the above legal position, we deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to restore

THE ACIT, CENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

ITA 232/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 40a

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), INDORE vs. M/S SURYA INFRA VENTURE PVT. LTD., INDORE

ITA 216/IND/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 40a

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

THE AIT,ENTRAL-1, INDORE vs. SURYA INFRAVENTURE P LTD, INDORE

ITA 217/IND/2021[201-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 40a

Section 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited. Being aggrieved, the Revenue filed the appeal before this Tribunal. 20. Before us, the Ld. CIt-DR vehemently supported the order of Ld. AO. Per contra Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the findings

M/S. GYAN SAGAR SOCIETY,INDORE vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), INDORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 643/IND/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2010-11 Gyan Sagar Society, Deputy Commissioner Of C/O Mahesh Thahirani, Vs. Income Tax-Circle 1(1), L, Triveni Colony, Indore Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Akgpj5075N Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Morish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Advocates Date Of Hearing 17.7.2018 Date Of 26.7.2018 Pronouncement

Section 10(23)(VI)Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the written submissions submitted that the first application for exemption u/s 12AA of the Act dated 28.3.2002 which was remanded by the Hon'ble Tribunal to Ld.CIT for fresh consideration has still not been disposed off. Same objects were mentioned

DHARMEDDRA DOSHI,SANWER ROAD, INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), INDORE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 352/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2017-18 Dharmendra Doshi, Ito, 147-B, Sector-F, 1(1), Sanwer Road Industrial Indore. बनाम/ Area, Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Afspd7034G Assessee By Shri Kunal Agrawal & Shri Harsh Choukse, Ca Revenue By Shri Sanjeev H. Bhagat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2025

Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 271ASection 68

2. Cash book 170 to 198 3. Pivot table summarizing the transactions 211 to 213 into pre-demonetization and post demonetization period 4. Ledger account along with Sale invoiced 156 to 166 pertaining to Cash realization. 1.3. That, the Ld. AO & Ld. CIT(A) had doubted the availability of alleged huge amount of cash for which suitable justifications were given

M/S AD-MANUM FINANCE LTD.,INDORE vs. THEDCIT 1(1) , INDORE, INDORE

ITA 331/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153C

2 & 3: The second ground of appeal has 5. been raised against the addition of Rs.6,10,OO,OOO/- made u/s 6B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of loan received from two parties namely M/s Chamak Trexim Pvt. Ltd front whom loan of Rs.3,42,00,OOO/- was received and M/s Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. from whom

DY. CIT -1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AGRAWAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION (P) LTD., INDORE

ITA 651/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153C

2 & 3: The second ground of appeal has 5. been raised against the addition of Rs.6,10,OO,OOO/- made u/s 6B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of loan received from two parties namely M/s Chamak Trexim Pvt. Ltd front whom loan of Rs.3,42,00,OOO/- was received and M/s Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. from whom

THE DCIT1(1), INDORE vs. M/S. AVILABLE FINANCE LTD., INDORE

ITA 895/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153C

2 & 3: The second ground of appeal has 5. been raised against the addition of Rs.6,10,OO,OOO/- made u/s 6B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of loan received from two parties namely M/s Chamak Trexim Pvt. Ltd front whom loan of Rs.3,42,00,OOO/- was received and M/s Aereo Dealcomm Pvt. Ltd. from whom

NEETA CHOUDHARY,PANSEMAL vs. SENDHWA, SENDHWA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 219/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

2. Background:\n2.1\nThe key issue discussed in the assessment order is the unexplained\ncash credit of Rs. 5,00,000 in the appellant's books of account. The Assessing\nOfficer treated this amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the\nAct.\n2.2\nThe Assessing Officer's arguments for making this addition were:\n(i)\nThe appellant

THE ACIT-2(1), UJJAIN vs. M/S. TURQUISE INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT.LTD., NAGDA

In the result, against total disallowance of Rs

ITA 332/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

68,496/- The disallowance on account of interest charges equal to A-B= 17,70,07,208/- The appellant has also considered the demat charges at Rs.673/-. Thereby making the total disallowance of Rs.17,70,07,881/- (Rs.17,70,07,208/- + Rs.673/-). The above action of the appellant of making disallowance of net interest has been upheld by following judicial

DANISH HEALTH CARE P LTD ,UJJAIN vs. PR CIT -1, INDORE

ITA 100/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Danish Health Care Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited, Indore बनाम/ 76/27, Maxi Road, Industrial Area, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaecd5554F Assessee By Ms.Ruchira Negi, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15.06.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

164/- from directors and Rs. 15,90,575/- from others. The AO has not examined this issue in terms of section 68 of the act. Ld. AR straightaway submitted that it is a wrong finding made by PCIT, in fact it does not match with assessee’s audited statements. Ld. DR could not rebut the submissions made

ACIT CENTRAL-2 INDORE, INDORE vs. SHRI .GAURAV TEKRIWAL, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 62/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Central -2 Shri Gaurav Tekriwal Indore बनाम/ 204, Princess Valley, South Tukoganj, Indore Vs. (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Acppt 1628 Q Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Arpit Gaur, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54FSection 55(2)(a)Section 57

section 56 of the Act.” 7. During appellate proceeding, Ld. CIT(A) reversed the action of Ld. AO. Ld. CIT(A) accepted assessee’s claim of long-term capital gain by observing as under: “4.3 I have duly considered tire facts of the case, the AO's order and the appellant’s written submission find that in support

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 265/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused

M/S ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS V A TECH HYDRO INDAI PVT. LTD.),MANDIDEEP vs. THE ACIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 316/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused

THE ACIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PVT. LTD., RAISEN

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 349/IND/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused

M/S. ANDRITZ HYDRO PRIVATE LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS VA TECH HYDRO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BHOPAL vs. THE DCIT 1(1), BHOPAL

In the result, grounds taken by the assessee in all the years with respect to provision of warranty are allowed

ITA 157/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 143(3)Section 144C

section 9(1)(vi) and section 9(1)(vii)of the Act as well as under India- Austria Tax Treaty on which TDS was not made hence, the AO has rightly disallowed the same under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 6.5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have perused

LATE SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA L/H SHRI PREM CHAWLA,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 1(2), BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 441/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

164 to 169/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 to 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07 Smt. Sarita Chawla ACIT 1(2), Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN ADGPC8831N Appellant by Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, ARs Respondent by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 21.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 26.11.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH

THE DCIT, 1(1), BHOPAL vs. SMT. SUDESH CHAWLA, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 405/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Nov 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradit(Ss)A Nos. 158 To 163/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 To 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 271(1)(c)

164 to 169/Ind/2015 Assessment Years 2000-01 to 2005-06 & Assessment Year-2006-07 Smt. Sarita Chawla ACIT 1(2), Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN ADGPC8831N Appellant by Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, ARs Respondent by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 21.09.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 26.11.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH