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.

456 results for “section 68”+ Section 28clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi5,091Mumbai4,456Bangalore1,569Kolkata1,098Chennai1,094Ahmedabad1,015Jaipur899Hyderabad748Karnataka697Pune562Indore456Chandigarh455Surat447Cochin272Raipur253Rajkot205Visakhapatnam205Nagpur141Agra140Lucknow138Amritsar119Cuttack119Telangana118Guwahati97SC83Ranchi78Calcutta77Allahabad68Jodhpur58Patna53Panaji39Jabalpur28Dehradun25Varanasi21Kerala10Rajasthan10Orissa9Uttarakhand3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI2Gauhati2A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1Tripura1Andhra Pradesh1K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN A.K. SIKRI1HARJIT SINGH BEDI CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)120Addition to Income92Section 6885Section 10(38)66Section 153A39Section 26331Section 14730Long Term Capital Gains24Section 115B21

RAJESH BAJAJ,BURHANPUR vs. THE ACIT , KHANDWA

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 16/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Kumar Bajaj Acit 13, Rajesh Industries, Vs. Khandwa Industrial Estate Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Ahnpb0036F Appellant By Shri S.S. Sheetal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashishporwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2020 O R D E R

Section 115Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

68 to Section 69C the highlighting part which is common is that if “the assessee offers no explanation about the nature of source of” either cash credits, investment, money bullion, jewellery or other valuable article investment and expenditure. ITANo.16/Ind/2019 Rajesh Kumar Bajaj 13. Let us examine the statement given by the assessee during the course of survey in reply

Showing 1–20 of 456 · Page 1 of 23

...
Disallowance21
Section 143(2)16
Natural Justice14

DCIT (CENTRAL)-2, INDORE vs. PUNJAB RETAIL (P) LTD., INDORE

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

ITA 677/IND/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Agrawal, CA & Shri PankajFor Respondent: Shri Rajib Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

68 to 69D are residuary sections and the same is applied only where the amount was not taxed under any specific chapter. In the present case in hand, the respondent assessee company is engaged in the business of Jewellery. The difference in the quantity of stock was during the normal business activities of the respondent assessee company. The excess

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

68 to 69Cas the part ofbusiness income then amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable. 4.3 Further placing reliance on the another judgment of the ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Anoop Neema, reported as 2022 (1) TMI 683-ITAT Indore, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) find

M/S SUPREMO INDIA LTD ,INDORE vs. THE AIT CENTRAL 3, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 29/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Supremo India Pvt. Ltd. Acit Central-3 400/2, Halka Patwari No.52 Indore Vs. Badiakeema Dudhiya, B.O. Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcs 9822 C Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.06.2023

Section 115BSection 131(1)Section 133ASection 69ASection 69B

68. The word ‘valuable’ has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as follows: - “Valuable adjective. Worth a good price; having financial or market value.” 69. The word ‘valuable’ has been defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as follows: - The word ‘valuable’ has been defined as again an adjective. “worth a great deal of money. Very useful or important

M/S NIKHIL ESTATE P LTD,INDORE vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE (3) INDORE, INDORE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 28/IND/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Nikhil Estate Pvt. Ltd. Acit (Central)-3 M-102, Mezzanine, Floor, Indore Dhan Trident, P. No.B-3 Pu- Vs. 4, Sch. No.54, Vijay Nagar Square, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcn 8056 D Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.06.2023

Section 115BSection 133ASection 69Section 69B

68. The word ‘valuable’ has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as follows: - “Valuable adjective. Worth a good price; having financial or market value.” 69. The word ‘valuable’ has been defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as follows: - The word ‘valuable’ has been defined as again an adjective. “worth a great deal of money. Very useful or important

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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 on the ground that that huge outstanding balance of sundry creditors remained unpaid for the period of more than three years and that the appellant had failed to establish the need for which it had incurred such expenditure. 5. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties. We have also perused the relevant

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 909/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

28,161/- is added under section 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961. As the assessee has deliberately and willfully

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

28,791/- on account of capital introduced by the partners by treating the same as unaccounted and unexplained credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and charging of tax liability by invoking the amended provision of section

RUPESH VYAS,INDORE vs. THE ACIT3(1), INDORE, INDORE

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 50/IND/2020[150-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

68 of Income Tax Act.1961. 4.2 The inquiries were carried out country-wide by DDIT (investigation), Kolkata and other parts of county to unearth the organized racket of generating bogus entries of Long Term Capital Gain which is exempt from tax. The modus operandi adopted by the operators was to make the beneficiary buy some Page 11 of 26 Shri

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER INDORE 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 503/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

section 68 of the 1.T. Act.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\nadmitting additional evidences at the time of appeal ignoring the fact that it\ndoes not fulfil the conditions laid down in Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962\nas sufficient opportunities were provided to the assessee during

INCOME TAX OFFICER 5(1), INDORE vs. UMANG DEVELOPERS, INDORE

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 502/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

section 68 of the 1.T. Act.\n5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in\nadmitting additional evidences at the time of appeal ignoring the fact that it\ndoes not fulfil the conditions laid down in Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962\nas sufficient opportunities were provided to the assessee during

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

28,07,500/- deposited in the bank\naccounts of the assessee during the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18 is\ntreated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 in the hands\nof the assessee for the AY 2017-18 and the same is taxed as per the\nprovisions of section

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 of the Act. The ld.AO, as we find from these order, discussed at length about the high premium and accepted Rs.28,31,888/- towards share capital (at Rs.9.62 per equity share), but treated Rs.11,49,18,112/- being the excessive share premium. However, no addition under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act was made while doing

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

SHRI AASHISH MANGAL,BARWANI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 247/Ind/2021 is dismissed

ITA 247/IND/2021[20149-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 28Section 69Section 69A

68,555/- as offered during the course of survey on account of excess cash found during survey even when the only source of income of the appellant was from his business and liable to tax under section 28

SHRI LOKESH MANGAL,BARWANI vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL,CIRCLE-2, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 247/Ind/2021 is dismissed

ITA 246/IND/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 28Section 69Section 69A

68,555/- as offered during the course of survey on account of excess cash found during survey even when the only source of income of the appellant was from his business and liable to tax under section 28

SHRI SHYAMLAL GOYAL,SENDHWA vs. THE ACIT CENTRAL,CIRCLE -2, INDORE

In the result, ITA No. 247/Ind/2021 is dismissed

ITA 245/IND/2021[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 28Section 69Section 69A

68,555/- as offered during the course of survey on account of excess cash found during survey even when the only source of income of the appellant was from his business and liable to tax under section 28

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 143(3)

28,290/- which was further revised on 31.03.2013 by declaring total income at Rs.30,38,290/-. The case was selected for scrutiny notice whereupon under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 14.08.2013 was duly served upon the assessee. Initially issues cropped up in regard to the jurisdiction of the Learned CIT(A) in issuing orders to the assessee

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 143(3)

28,290/- which was further revised on 31.03.2013 by declaring total income at Rs.30,38,290/-. The case was selected for scrutiny notice whereupon under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 14.08.2013 was duly served upon the assessee. Initially issues cropped up in regard to the jurisdiction of the Learned CIT(A) in issuing orders to the assessee